On Saturday, December 28, 2024, at 1:27 PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Were the test rebuilds for llvm-toolchain-* successful?
llvm-toolchain-17, -18, and -19 build successfully on amd64 with the new
Abseil packages installed
(sbuild --extra-package=.../libabsl20240722_20240722.0-1_amd64.d
On Saturday, December 28, 2024, at 1:27 PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Were the test rebuilds for llvm-toolchain-* successful?
I haven’t tried rebuilding yet. I’ll see if I can get to it this week.
Benjamin
On Saturday, October 5, 2024, at 12:04 AM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> If a rebuilt grpc would help to do the tests, I can schedule binNMUs in
> experimental to have grpc built against the new abseil.
BinNMUs for grpc in experimental would indeed be helpful. If you binNMU
gRPC, I can do llv
On Friday, September 13, 2024, at 11:59 AM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Do you also have test results for llvm-toolchain-{15,16,17,18,19}?
I haven't actually tried them. They don't depend on Abseil directly,
just on gRPC. I thus expect they will be broken by the transition until
gRPC gets bi
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: abs...@packages.debian.org, Stefano Rivera
Control: affects -1 + src:abseil
I'd like to transition sid from Abseil 20230802 to Abseil 20240722. The new
version has a new AB
On Monday, April 1, 2024, at 2:57 PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Could you please re-add the build dependency on dpkg-dev (>= 1.22.5) to
> ensure that the build with the new armel/armhf ABI only migrates when
> the time_t transition is ready to advance?
Yes! I am going to wait for the cur
On Friday, March 29, 2024, at 1:02 PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Since the version in unstable fails to build on armel and armhf and
> blocks the time_t transition, but the version in experimental builds
> fine, let's do this transition now.
>
> With the upload to unstable, please check th
I’d like to alter this transition request. Instead of transitioning to
version 20230802, I’d like to transition to version 20240116, which
upstream recently released.
Is that okay? If so, I’ll upload 20240116 to experimental and reexamine
reverse dependencies. If not, please let me know how to pro
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: abs...@packages.debian.org, Rene Engelhard
Control: affects -1 + src:abseil
Abseil 20230802 has been out for a while, and I'd like to transition sid
to it. The new version
pc64el FTBFS bug of
> abseil. Do you have an estimate when you'd be able to work on the bug?
On Tuesday, August 30, 2022, at 10:57 AM -0400, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
> I'll do it today.
I had a look at the failing test today, and it appears fairly subtle. I
think it involves picking the
On Tuesday, August 30, 2022, at 8:34 AM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Reverse dependencies of abseil are also part of the ongoing Gnome 3 /
> libsoup3 / etc transition. As I'd like to avoid to getting that blocked
> for to long, I'd appreciate a quick fix for the ppc64el FTBFS bug of
> abseil
Hi, Rene,
Thank you for pointing me to the relevant docs. I’m sorry I didn’t
follow them this time. I will take care to follow them as best as I can
during the rest of this transition and in the future.
Best,
Benjamin
Hi, Rene,
Thank you so much for doing all the work to figure out what packages I
need to binNMU! I’ll get the ppc64el tests fixed and take care of the
binNMUs ASAP.
Please let me know if you (or anybody else on the release team) would
like me to coordinate Abseil transitions in the future. I susp
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
buster currently carries coq/8.9.0-1, but coq-doc still documents
Coq 8.6. Building the reference manual for 8.9.0 requires the ANTLR 4
runtime for Python 3, which is not in buster
(https://bugs.
On Saturday, March 9, 2019, at 3:17 PM EST, Paul Gevers wrote:
> [...] I took a look at the times in the bug, and it seems you uploaded
> the package *after* it got removed.
>
> Is it just me, or did you suggest a different time line? If so, why?
No, it’s not just you – I believed that I had upl
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package aac-tactics
I uploaded coq/8.9.0-1 to unstable shortly before the soft freeze
began. Unfortunately, this caused aac-tactics to FTBFS
(https://bugs.debian.org/919463)
16 matches
Mail list logo
