Bug#899035: libgit2 0.27 transition

[Pirate Praveen]

On May 18, 2018 11:50:35 PM GMT+05:30, Simon McVittie <smcv at debian.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 May 2018 at 21:18:49 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> libgit2 0.27 is now available in experimental. Please make sure your
>package
>> is ready for this version by the time we upload this package to
>unstable in
>> one to two weeks.
>
>Have you tried building reverse-dependencies like gitg against the
>new libgit2?

I wanted to give a heads up earlier. I will rebuild all the reversed dependencies now.

>How extensive are the API/ABI breaks in the new version of libgit2?

My main motivation was to get ruby-rugged 0.27 which required newer libgit2.

Only new symbols are added.

https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/libgit2.git/commit/?id=814217455e3d06c9d7062e39f70352e96b595e64

>> The severity of this report will be raised to serious once
>> libgit2 0.27 is uploaded to unstable.
>
>This is not how transitions work. "This package is involved in
>a transition" is not a release-critical bug: packages affected by
>transitions are normally rebuilt by binNMUs scheduled by the release
>team, which cannot usefully close bugs. You should only open or
>escalate
>release-critical bugs if something is known to be wrong, such as gitg
>failing to build from source against the new version of libgit2.

This is first transition for me so I'm sure I missed some bits. That is also the reason to file bugs at this stage so people involved are aware.

>The release team are unlikely to give you a transition slot for
>uploading
>the new libgit version to unstable until/unless you can estimate how
>much
>breakage it will cause and how much effort is involved in fixing it.

Thanks for the tips, I will rebuild all reverse deps and escalate or close the bugs as required.

>Thanks,
>    smcv

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.