• Bug#1098999: transition: bobcat

    From tony mancill@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 27 05:20:02 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

    Package: release.debian.org
    Severity: normal
    X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected]
    Control: affects -1 + src:bobcat
    User: [email protected]
    Usertags: transition

    Dear Release Team,

    The bobcat source package 6.07.01 introduces an enum change that will
    require sourceful uploads of a subset of packages that have build
    dependencies on libbobcat-dev to accommodate the new enum value. Or put
    more directly, the following packages will FTBFS once bobcat >= 6.07.01
    enters the archive:

    filtermail
    flexc++
    guncat
    natlog
    ssh-cron
    stealth
    xd

    In case you're curious, the reason the enum change can't be made
    backwards compatible is due to the use of a single precompiled header in
    bobcat 6.07 and the preprocessor tripping over the (old) enum value of
    "None". Not all

    There is no ABI breakage, hence no SONAME bump, and there is no issue
    with libbobcat6 entering the archive.

    All of these source packages have a common upstream author who has
    already prepared updated upstream versions that will declare versioned
    build dependencies on libbobcat-dev >= 6.07.01. I have verified the
    list by building all packages that build-dep on bobcat.

    If the transition is approved, I believe the convention is that I will
    file FTBFS bugs against all of the affected build r-deps and block them
    with the transition bug. (Or perhaps simply mark these packages as
    affected by the transition bug?)

    Then upload bobcat to unstable, and follow immediately with the new
    versions of the affected packages with the versioned build-dep. This
    could also be done in the opposite order - I am open to guidance.

    I wasn't 100% clear on how to specify a version in the ben file but this
    is the proposed file:

    title = "bobcat";
    is_affected = .depends ~ "libbobcat-dev"
    is_good = .depends ~ "libbobcat-dev" & >= "6.07.01";
    is_bad = .depends ~ "libbobcat-dev" & << "6.07.01";


    Thank you in advance for your help,
    tony

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEE5Qr9Va3SequXFjqLIdIFiZdLPpYFAme/5cQACgkQIdIFiZdL Ppam8Q//YHzKBsOJU69ymqW+Z1DD3bqYCC8/MUDj0uSsxt+yuZGnByPJEpnCgBrP +UODkTaIopHiIFP+ug45bugyf+MpbKXgGK78IUQ4hy+PSJSMixVQ+k/1d5uMOP/T Q5KPPiUNH14CdsRJm85bxgzYC9bO7cV1wZyVG8QKZd/Rr/51OQCYXbwAwWrAiOtT aTAOzyJ5M2Bv5rs4DicTXFYJolzWUP+xXDP9NJBmh2IshbHFvbUaQx7wL2xZ//a9 23xUWyFeFVIBqn9gTtTcepgdkVK19TnVb2ACuJepo/BYLiNWyWDGQIz+WbvZ3UVS lSbuUP3CWLVcBsnboLp14YRuK3jz91wXgReY9mEoj2ik0+CXlVdBX8Sn/aLJlOpK I8lGwZxNaQgCoE7Dpvsgr46037DJxJQRsv9MqsoezMA2uO1TscVGMcMiNJEz/hw2 iBWAXW1GXE63RZrn5Q9ct+IgnGdqYzFgFHZuJnaIahXCYvaPfOol6ST2nTML9HC7 4qVfzG+/I+6nd0XSfTRF7VrJJKgE7JpHubAFg740r6PUEudkHptzlqBl2rhhUR+5 QzU1Ne35uBbEy/QM3+c902vyat0/wXEH0dL7e56UBLWGMoETHcYid4XP1AeYk/m1 BebuvsTZefvZBuW4n0et40ujrxu3x2JzoyPa0bfv8QJfAdY5XNk=
    =IttN
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Debian Bug Tracking System@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 27 05:20:01 2025
    Processing control commands:

    affects -1 + src:bobcat
    Bug #1098999 [release.debian.org] transition: bobcat
    Added indication that 1098999 affects src:bobcat

    --
    1098999: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1098999
    Debian Bug Tracking System
    Contact [email protected] with problems

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Debian Bug Tracking System@21:1/5 to tony mancill on Fri Feb 28 10:20:01 2025
    This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

    Your message dated Fri, 28 Feb 2025 10:12:59 +0100
    with message-id <[email protected]>
    and subject line Re: Bug#1098999: transition: bobcat
    has caused the Debian Bug report #1098999,
    regarding transition: bobcat
    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 [email protected]
    immediately.)


    --
    1098999: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1098999
    Debian Bug Tracking System
    Contact [email protected] with problems

    Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 27 Feb 2025 04:10:30 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
    (2021-04-09) on buxtehude.debian.org
    X-Spam-Level:
    X-Spam-Status: No, score=-131.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,
    BODY_INCLUDES_CONTROL_AFFECTS,BODY_INCLUDES_PACKAGE,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
    DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FROMDEVELOPER,
    HAS_PACKAGE,PGPSIGNATURE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,
    USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST autolearn=ham
    autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 27; hammy, 150; neutral, 86; spammy,
    0. spammytokens:
    hammytokens:0.000-+--Hx-spam-relays-external:sk:stravin,
    0.000-+--H*RT:sk:stravin, 0.000-+--Hx-spam-relays-external:311,
    0.000-+--H*RT:311, 0.000-+--H*RT:108
    Return-path: <tmancill@de