XPost: linux.debian.devel.release

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 proceed; a
20230802 -> 20240116 upgrade would require a second transition, and I
don’t want to create extra work.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.devel.release

On 2024-02-14 14:48:49 -0500, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:

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 proceed; a
20230802 -> 20240116 upgrade would require a second transition, and I
don’t want to create extra work.

That's okay. There is enough time to prepare a tranistion to 20240116
until we have finished the time_t transition.

Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.devel.release

Control: tags -1 confirmed

Hi Benjamin

On 2024-02-14 21:01:40 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:

On 2024-02-14 14:48:49 -0500, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:

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 proceed; a
20230802 -> 20240116 upgrade would require a second transition, and I don’t want to create extra work.

That's okay. There is enough time to prepare a tranistion to 20240116
until we have finished the time_t transition.

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 the FTBFS issue on risc64,
though. See https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=abseil&arch=riscv64&ver=20230802.1-2&stamp=1703403912&raw=0

Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.devel.release

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 the FTBFS issue on risc64,
though.

Sounds good. I never did get around to uploading 20240116 to
experimental. I’ll upload 20230802 to unstable this weekend, and I’ll
come back for 20240116 later.

Upstream has accepted [1], which should fix the FTBFS on riscv64. It
should be an easy backport to 20230802. I’ll make sure it’s included
when I do the upload this weekend.

[1] https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/commit/7335a36d0b5c1c597566f9aa3f458a5b6817c3b4

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.devel.release

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 current upload (20230802.1-3) to finish building on RISC-V, just to make sure the FTBFS is fixed. (It’s already
11 hours in; it can’t take too much longer.) Once that’s done, I’ll upload a new 20230802.1-4 with a Build-Depends: dpkg-dev (>= 1.22.5).
(If you’d prefer that I preempt the current build and upload
20230802.1-4 right now, just let me know.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)