Your message dated Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:53:29 -0300 with message-id <CAAfdZj_=vx-hwizjr7r8oq6uaf+sfdmyyyj50wtitrq2pkw...@mail.gmail.com> and subject line Re: Bug#791197: lv2-c++-tools: library transition may be needed when GCC 5 is the default has caused the Debian Bug report #791197, regarding lv2-c++-tools: library transition may be needed when GCC 5 is the default to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 791197: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=791197 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: src:lv2-c++-tools Version: 1.0.5-1 Severity: important Tags: sid stretch User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertags: libstdc++-cxx11 Background [1]: libstdc++6 introduces a new ABI to conform to the C++11 standard, but keeps the old ABI to not break existing binaries. Packages which are built with g++-5 from experimental (not the one from testing/unstable) are using the new ABI. Libraries built from this source package export some of the new __cxx11 or B5cxx11 symbols, and dropping other symbols. If these symbols are part of the API of the library, then this rebuild with g++-5 will trigger a transition for the library. What is needed: - Rebuild the library using g++/g++-5 from experimental. Note that most likely all C++ libraries within the build dependencies need a rebuild too. You can find the log for a rebuild in https://people.debian.org/~doko/logs/gcc5-20150701/ Search for "BEGIN GCC CXX11" in the log. - Decide if the symbols matching __cxx11 or B5cxx11 are part of the library API, and are used by the reverse dependencies of the library. - If there are no symbols matching __cxx11 or B5cxx11 in the symbols forming the library API, you should close this issue with a short explanation. - If there are no reverse dependencies, it should be the package maintainers decision if a transition is needed. However this might break software which is not in the Debian archive, and built against these packages. - If a library transition is needed, please prepare for the change. Rename the library package, append "v5" to the name of the package (e.g. libfoo2 -> libfoo2v5). Such a change can be avoided, if you have a soversion bump and you upload this version instead of the renamed package. Prepare a patch and attach it to this issue (mark this issue with patch), so that it is possible to NMU such a package. We'll probably have more than hundred transitions triggered. Then reassign the issue to release.debian.org and properly tag it as a transition issue, by sending an email to cont...@bugs.debian.org: user release.debian....@packages.debian.org usertag <this issue> + transition block <this issue> by 790756 reassign <this issue> release.debian.org - If unsure if a transition is needed, please tag the issue with help to ask for feedback from other Debian developers. The libstdc++6 transition will be a large one, and it will come with a lot of pain. Please help it by preparing the follow-up transitions. [1] https://wiki.debian.org/GCC5#libstdc.2B-.2B-_ABI_transition
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---On 10 August 2015 at 19:48, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 at 12:49:43 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> I don't think a transition is required, but maybe there are libpaq >> users outside debian? Does someone know? > > If there isn't a reason to suspect there are library users outside Debian, > it seems less disruptive to assume there are not. If it's absolutely > necessary, there can be a follow-up transition afterwards. > > jcristau said on IRC that the release team would prefer to have packages > with no known reason for a transition taken off their radar; there are too > many library renames going on at once as it is. So I'd suggest closing > this bug. Makes sense. If someone complains we will start a transition. Closing -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
