Debian Bug report logs - #739079
transition: libav10

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@tauware.de>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: transition: libav10

Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:42:41 +0000

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

Hi,

We have a new libav transition pending. Libav 10 is prepared in
debian/experimental, and I've started to build packges against this new
version; in fact, more or more packages require Libav 10 and the new
APIs it provides.

Unfortunately, this new release does break a number of packages in the
debian archive. At upstream, we are concerned about this and have
conducted a survey about the fallout here:
https://etherpad.mozilla.org/mnrZI5XlxP

Most projects have been fixed upstream already, some other are rather
easy to fix (e.g., simple renames such as CODEC_ID -> AV_CODEC_ID,
etc.). In order to help with porting, Libav provides a migration guide here:
https://wiki.libav.org/Migration/10

I sincerly do hope that this libav10 transition will not be as painful
as libav9, but we do have a number of undermaintained packages in the
archive that require upstream work. For those, I'd suggest to be a bit
more aggressive with removing them from testing for the sake of having
this transition done more quickly.

Thanks for your assistance.

Ben file:

title = "libav";
is_affected = .depends ~ /lib(avcodec|avformat|avutil|device|filter)-dev/
is_good = .depends ~ /lib(avcodec55|avformat55|avutil53|device54|filter4)/
is_bad = .depends ~ /lib(avcodec54|avformat54|avutil52|device53|filter3)/


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.2
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.11.0-15-generic (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Message #10 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>

To: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@tauware.de>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 19:37:54 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Reinhard

On 2014-02-15 17:42:41, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Unfortunately, this new release does break a number of packages in the
> debian archive. At upstream, we are concerned about this and have
> conducted a survey about the fallout here:
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/mnrZI5XlxP

I'm not a member of the Release Team, but have bugs been filed in the
BTS for the reverse dependencies that fail to build against libav 10? I
think it was rather painful last time when plenty of the FTBFS bugs
caused by libav 9 got reported after the transition already started.

Regards
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@tauware.de>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:57:47 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 19:37:54 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:

> Hi Reinhard
> 
> On 2014-02-15 17:42:41, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > Unfortunately, this new release does break a number of packages in the
> > debian archive. At upstream, we are concerned about this and have
> > conducted a survey about the fallout here:
> > https://etherpad.mozilla.org/mnrZI5XlxP
> 
> I'm not a member of the Release Team, but have bugs been filed in the
> BTS for the reverse dependencies that fail to build against libav 10? I
> think it was rather painful last time when plenty of the FTBFS bugs
> caused by libav 9 got reported after the transition already started.
> 
Agreed, I'm very much not looking forward to a repeat of that
experience.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #20 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>

To: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:16:05 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

(Putting the bug back into the loop.)

On 2014-02-16 21:47:25, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 03:44:01PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> wrote:
> > > Reinhard Tartler <siretart@tauware.de> schrieb:
> > >> Package: release.debian.org
> > >> Severity: normal
> > >> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > >> Usertags: transition
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> We have a new libav transition pending. Libav 10 is prepared in
> > >> debian/experimental, and I've started to build packges against this new
> > >> version; in fact, more or more packages require Libav 10 and the new
> > >> APIs it provides.
> > >
> > > Is the alpha2 version in experimental final in terms of API deprecations?
> > 
> > It should be. I intend to release and upload 10_beta1 to experimental
> > by end of this weekend (tomorrow latest), and includes some additions
> > that happened after alpha2 (i.e., there will be a shlibs, but no
> > SONAME bump). Neverthless, I think it should be safe.
> 
> Ok. I'll run a test build against libav/exp and file bugs against all packages
> which fail.

Thank you Moritz for doing the test build. I've added usertags to the
bugs you've already filed (user
pkg-multimeida-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org, usertag libav10):
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org;tag=libav10

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #25 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

To: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>

Cc: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:48:28 +0100

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 08:16:05PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> (Putting the bug back into the loop.)
> 
> On 2014-02-16 21:47:25, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 03:44:01PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> wrote:
> > > > Reinhard Tartler <siretart@tauware.de> schrieb:
> > > >> Package: release.debian.org
> > > >> Severity: normal
> > > >> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > > >> Usertags: transition
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> We have a new libav transition pending. Libav 10 is prepared in
> > > >> debian/experimental, and I've started to build packges against this new
> > > >> version; in fact, more or more packages require Libav 10 and the new
> > > >> APIs it provides.
> > > >
> > > > Is the alpha2 version in experimental final in terms of API deprecations?
> > > 
> > > It should be. I intend to release and upload 10_beta1 to experimental
> > > by end of this weekend (tomorrow latest), and includes some additions
> > > that happened after alpha2 (i.e., there will be a shlibs, but no
> > > SONAME bump). Neverthless, I think it should be safe.
> > 
> > Ok. I'll run a test build against libav/exp and file bugs against all packages
> > which fail.
> 
> Thank you Moritz for doing the test build. I've added usertags to the
> bugs you've already filed (user
> pkg-multimeida-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org, usertag libav10):
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org;tag=libav10

I'm already doing the same, haven't announced it yet since the rebuild
isn't fully finished. Better use this one instead:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=libav10;users=jmm@debian.org
 
Cheers,
        Moritz

Message #34 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Cc: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org, Reinhard Tartler <siretart@tauware.de>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:48:44 +0100

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 08:57:47PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 19:37:54 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> 
> > Hi Reinhard
> > 
> > On 2014-02-15 17:42:41, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, this new release does break a number of packages in the
> > > debian archive. At upstream, we are concerned about this and have
> > > conducted a survey about the fallout here:
> > > https://etherpad.mozilla.org/mnrZI5XlxP
> > 
> > I'm not a member of the Release Team, but have bugs been filed in the
> > BTS for the reverse dependencies that fail to build against libav 10? I
> > think it was rather painful last time when plenty of the FTBFS bugs
> > caused by libav 9 got reported after the transition already started.
> > 
> Agreed, I'm very much not looking forward to a repeat of that
> experience.

I made a rebuild and the transitions isn't ready to go at all. 

IMO the API changes are far too agressive; if 2/3 of all packages in
the archive FTBFS, the affected APIs are clearly not that deprecated.

I can understand the removal of ill-designed functions if it helps
to streamline/robustify the code, but e.g. the removal of CODEC_ID* 
causes lots of churn for no measurable benefit.


Anyway, here's the results of the test build:

The packages compile fine if built against libav10/exp:
amarok
aqualung
aubio
cantata
chromaprint
ffmpegthumbnailer
ffmpegthumbs
ffms2
gimp-gap
gmic
goldendict
hedgewars
kdenlive
kid3
kradio4
libextractor
mediatomb
mlt
moc
mpd
mpv
nepomuk-core
sox
spek
squeezelite
vlc
volview
x264


Fixed in experimental:
handbrake


These packages fail to build from source if built against
libav10/exp. Bugs have been filed with the following usertag:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=libav10;users=jmm@debian.org

acoustid-fingerprinter (739208)
alsa-plugins (739209)
amide (739211)
audacious-plugins (739212)
avbin (739191)
avifile (739213)
bino (739214)
blender (739238)
cmus (739301)
dff (739240)
dvbcut (739220)
ffdiaporama (739221)
ffmpeg2theora (739237)
forked-daapd (739239)
freerdp (739242)
fuse-emulator-utils (739243)
gmerlin-avdecoder (739302)
gmerlin-encoders (739425)
gnash (739303)
gpac (739321)
gst-libav1.0 (739322)
guvcview (739323)
harvid (739304)
idjc (739320)
jitsi (739432)
jugglemaster (739244)
k3b (739312)
kino (739426)
libphash (739336)
libquicktime (739325)
lightspark (739328)
linphone (739314)
lives (739327)
lynkeos.app (739316)
mplayer2 (739337)
opal (739439)
opencv (739440)
openscenegraph (739460)
paraview (739434)
performous (739433)
qmmp (739378)
qutecom (739427)
shotdetect (739376)
silan (739326)
strigi (739442)
survex (739332)
transcode (739428)
tupi (739429)
vice (739315)
vtk (739462)
vtk6 (739456)
vxl (739457)
wxsvg (739454)
xbmc (739441)
xine-lib (739453)
xine-lib-1.2 (739458)
xjadeo (739431)
xmms2 (739455)
xpra (739459)
yorick-av (739377)
zoneminder (739461)



Blocked by other FTBFSes, didn't check further whether compatible with libav10
minidlna
dvswitch
libomxil-bellagio
libvalhalla
visp
renpy


Already broken since libav9 (all packages dropped from jessie anyway)
ffmpeg-php
gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg / miro
libavg
motion
taoframework

Cheers,
        Moritz

Message #41 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: anton@khirnov.net

To: 739079@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>, Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, Reinhard Tartler <siretart@tauware.de>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:53:30 +0100

Hi,
(a libav developer responsible for most of the breaks here)

I do not think bringing back the CODEC_ID_* stuff is such a great idea.
The reasons are:

- keeping compatibility in this case requires a rather ugly hack (because in c++
  different enums are not compatible), which has to my knowledge broken at least
  one program (this is also the reason the change was made -- CODEC_ID is a very
  generic identifier, so there's a rather high chance of conflicts)
- experience tells us that the downstreams generally do not adapt until they
  have to, so this would just postpone the breakage for a time, we'd still have
  to deal with it eventually
- adapting to this specific change in Debian is a trivial replacement that can
  be done with sed (since only one libav version needs to be supported). Fixing
  downstreams that want to support older libav versions is a little more
  involved, but still no rocket science; I've already sent patches to a number
  of downstreams, but some are slow to respond, or want to support very old
  versions. If you don't mind carrying some patches until the downstreams fix
  their stuff, I can write Debian-specific patches that only work with latest
  Libav (jitsi comes to mind here, most other complex breakage should be fixed
  already)

Finally, I'm sorry that the changes are causing so much pain to our downstreams,
but I believe they are necessary and must be made sooner or later.

Regards
-- 
Anton Khirnov

Message #48 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

To: 739079@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>, Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, Anton Khirnov <anton@khirnov.net>, Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 11:01:34 -0500

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> wrote:
> I made a rebuild and the transitions isn't ready to go at all.
>
> IMO the API changes are far too agressive; if 2/3 of all packages in
> the archive FTBFS, the affected APIs are clearly not that deprecated.
>
> I can understand the removal of ill-designed functions if it helps
> to streamline/robustify the code, but e.g. the removal of CODEC_ID*
> causes lots of churn for no measurable benefit.

As Anton points out, the API changes are agressive, but done for good
reason, most of which are documented in the transition guide. It is a
wiki and will be extended as necessary. The CODEC_ID issue is indeed
annoying, but kinda critical for C++ applications. Also note that the
new names are supported even in debian/stable, so there is really no
need for backwards compatibility here.

Anyway, now two weeks after, I think things look much better now:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=libav10;users=jmm@debian.org

Most packages have patches readily available or need a new upstream
version. Note that more and more packages require libav10 to build,
and are held back in experimental for this reason.

The todo list of bugs without a patch is also shrinking rapidly:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=libav10;users=jmm@debian.org;exclude=tags%3Apatch%2C+fixed-upstream

From the velocity of how fast packages are being patched, I think we
are in a rather good position to start this transition.

-- 
regards,
    Reinhard

Message #53 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Schaal <farbing@web.de>

To: 739079@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 739214@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: transition: libav10

Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:09:02 +0100

I uploaded a new version of bino to mentors.d.n which fixes the compilation 
with libav10 by backporting some upstream commits, but I would need a sponsor 
to upload it for me, as my usual sponsor will be on vacation the next couple 
of weeks,

https://mentors.debian.net/package/bino
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/bino/bino_1.4.4-2.dsc

-- 
Thanks,
Daniel

Message #62 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu>

To: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

Cc: 739079@bugs.debian.org, Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, Anton Khirnov <anton@khirnov.net>, Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 15:39:24 +0200

Hi Reinhard,

2014-03-01 17:01 GMT+01:00 Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> wrote:
>> I made a rebuild and the transitions isn't ready to go at all.
>>
>> IMO the API changes are far too agressive; if 2/3 of all packages in
>> the archive FTBFS, the affected APIs are clearly not that deprecated.
>>
>> I can understand the removal of ill-designed functions if it helps
>> to streamline/robustify the code, but e.g. the removal of CODEC_ID*
>> causes lots of churn for no measurable benefit.
>
> As Anton points out, the API changes are agressive, but done for good
> reason, most of which are documented in the transition guide. It is a
> wiki and will be extended as necessary. The CODEC_ID issue is indeed
> annoying, but kinda critical for C++ applications. Also note that the
> new names are supported even in debian/stable, so there is really no
> need for backwards compatibility here.
>
> Anyway, now two weeks after, I think things look much better now:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=libav10;users=jmm@debian.org
>
> Most packages have patches readily available or need a new upstream
> version. Note that more and more packages require libav10 to build,
> and are held back in experimental for this reason.
>
> The todo list of bugs without a patch is also shrinking rapidly:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=libav10;users=jmm@debian.org;exclude=tags%3Apatch%2C+fixed-upstream
>
> From the velocity of how fast packages are being patched, I think we
> are in a rather good position to start this transition.
When do you plan starting the transition? How about opening it with
Libav 10.1? ;-)
I think we are in a pretty good position for startin now.

Cheers,
Balint

Message #67 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

To: Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 20:35:55 -0400

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu> wrote:

> When do you plan starting the transition? How about opening it with
> Libav 10.1? ;-)
> I think we are in a pretty good position for startin now.

I agree. Let me upload 10.1 this weekend to unstable to finally start
this transition.

-- 
regards,
    Reinhard

Message #72 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu>, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 15:16:12 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, May  8, 2014 at 20:35:55 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:

> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu> wrote:
> 
> > When do you plan starting the transition? How about opening it with
> > Libav 10.1? ;-)
> > I think we are in a pretty good position for startin now.
> 
> I agree. Let me upload 10.1 this weekend to unstable to finally start
> this transition.
> 
What's the status of the remaining 8 open bugs?  (Mostly interested in
vtk and opencv, since they're the ones with reverse deps, I think.)

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #77 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Cc: 739079@bugs.debian.org, Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu>, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 11:25:49 -0400

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May  8, 2014 at 20:35:55 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu> wrote:
>>
>> > When do you plan starting the transition? How about opening it with
>> > Libav 10.1? ;-)
>> > I think we are in a pretty good position for startin now.
>>
>> I agree. Let me upload 10.1 this weekend to unstable to finally start
>> this transition.
>>
> What's the status of the remaining 8 open bugs?  (Mostly interested in
> vtk and opencv, since they're the ones with reverse deps, I think.)

I've just uploaded NMUs for vtk and opencv to DELAYED/5, but I can
reschedule them if you think that this would be appropriate.

for the rest, I'd think that there is a very good chance that the
respective maintainers are going to fix them before they turn out to
be actual blockers of the transition. If they do, let's remove them
temporarily from testing.

I mean, uploading libav10 to unstable will require many additional
sourceful uploads of package versions that are currently in
experimental, which will take some time by itself. I'd suggest let's
start with that.


-- 
regards,
    Reinhard

Message #82 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu>, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 17:50:54 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:25:49 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:

> for the rest, I'd think that there is a very good chance that the
> respective maintainers are going to fix them before they turn out to
> be actual blockers of the transition. If they do, let's remove them
> temporarily from testing.
> 
> I mean, uploading libav10 to unstable will require many additional
> sourceful uploads of package versions that are currently in
> experimental, which will take some time by itself. I'd suggest let's
> start with that.
> 
So the fact that it'll require sourceful uploads of lots of packages
with many different maintainers is actually a big part of what makes
this painful for us.  The easiest transitions are the ones where a
rebuild is all that's necessary, and fewer people need to be involved to
upload things at more or less the same time.

Would a timeline like this work for you:
- T: upload libav to unstable
- T+0: upgrade all FTBFS bugs to serious severity, ask maintainers to
  move the updated packages from experimental to sid
- T+1 day (approximately): libav is built on all archs in sid
- T+1 week: libav maintainers (+ anyone else interested) start NMUing
  the remaining packages (without delay)
- T+2 weeks (hopefully): everything is rebuilt and can move to testing
?

For reference last time took 2 months.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #87 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Cc: 739079@bugs.debian.org, Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu>, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 12:05:55 -0400

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:25:49 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
>> for the rest, I'd think that there is a very good chance that the
>> respective maintainers are going to fix them before they turn out to
>> be actual blockers of the transition. If they do, let's remove them
>> temporarily from testing.
>>
>> I mean, uploading libav10 to unstable will require many additional
>> sourceful uploads of package versions that are currently in
>> experimental, which will take some time by itself. I'd suggest let's
>> start with that.
>>
> So the fact that it'll require sourceful uploads of lots of packages
> with many different maintainers is actually a big part of what makes
> this painful for us.  The easiest transitions are the ones where a
> rebuild is all that's necessary, and fewer people need to be involved to
> upload things at more or less the same time.

I see. Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to prepare all of libav's
reverse dependencies in this way, which is why I need I'm asking for
assistance. I'm sorry to cause this amount of pain to you, but I don't
see how to do better here.

> Would a timeline like this work for you:
> - T: upload libav to unstable
> - T+0: upgrade all FTBFS bugs to serious severity, ask maintainers to
>   move the updated packages from experimental to sid
> - T+1 day (approximately): libav is built on all archs in sid
> - T+1 week: libav maintainers (+ anyone else interested) start NMUing
>   the remaining packages (without delay)
> - T+2 weeks (hopefully): everything is rebuilt and can move to testing
> ?

That would be beautiful. From my side, I would appreciate it very much
if we could make T==today.

> For reference last time took 2 months.

I'll be doing my best to make it happen faster this time.

-- 
regards,
    Reinhard

Message #92 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu>, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 18:20:17 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Control: tag -1 confirmed

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:05:55 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:

> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> wrote:
> > Would a timeline like this work for you:
> > - T: upload libav to unstable
> > - T+0: upgrade all FTBFS bugs to serious severity, ask maintainers to
> >   move the updated packages from experimental to sid
> > - T+1 day (approximately): libav is built on all archs in sid
> > - T+1 week: libav maintainers (+ anyone else interested) start NMUing
> >   the remaining packages (without delay)
> > - T+2 weeks (hopefully): everything is rebuilt and can move to testing
> > ?
> 
> That would be beautiful. From my side, I would appreciate it very much
> if we could make T==today.
> 
> > For reference last time took 2 months.
> 
> I'll be doing my best to make it happen faster this time.
> 
OK, let's go ahead then.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #99 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Cc: 739079@bugs.debian.org, Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu>, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 13:37:35 -0400

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> wrote:
> Control: tag -1 confirmed
>
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:05:55 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> wrote:
>> > Would a timeline like this work for you:
>> > - T: upload libav to unstable
>> > - T+0: upgrade all FTBFS bugs to serious severity, ask maintainers to
>> >   move the updated packages from experimental to sid
>> > - T+1 day (approximately): libav is built on all archs in sid
>> > - T+1 week: libav maintainers (+ anyone else interested) start NMUing
>> >   the remaining packages (without delay)
>> > - T+2 weeks (hopefully): everything is rebuilt and can move to testing
>> > ?
>>
>> That would be beautiful. From my side, I would appreciate it very much
>> if we could make T==today.
>>
>> > For reference last time took 2 months.
>>
>> I'll be doing my best to make it happen faster this time.
>>
> OK, let's go ahead then.


Thanks,
uploaded and ACCEPTED.

-- 
regards,
    Reinhard

Message #106 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Alessandro Ghedini <ghedo@debian.org>

To: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

Cc: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, Debian Multimedia Maintainers <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 22:53:13 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On dom, mag 11, 2014 at 12:05:55 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> wrote:
> > For reference last time took 2 months.
> 
> I'll be doing my best to make it happen faster this time.

If help is needed I can lend a hand.

Cheers

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #111 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

To: 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 22:02:38 -0400

Hi,

The following packages from pkg-multimedia build just fine for me:

nmu lives_2.2.4~ds0-2 . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
nmu chromaprint_1.1-1 . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
nmu libffms2-3_2.19.1-1 . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
nmu idjc_0.8.14-1  . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
nmu silan_0.3.2-2  . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
nmu wxsvg_2:1.3~dfsg-1  . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"

Please schedule binNMUs.
Thanks.

-- 
regards,
    Reinhard

Message #116 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 11:01:38 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 22:02:38 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The following packages from pkg-multimedia build just fine for me:
> 
> nmu lives_2.2.4~ds0-2 . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
> nmu chromaprint_1.1-1 . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
> nmu idjc_0.8.14-1  . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
> nmu silan_0.3.2-2  . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
> nmu wxsvg_2:1.3~dfsg-1  . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
> 
Scheduled.  Note that you need a space between -m and the message.

> nmu libffms2-3_2.19.1-1 . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"

That's not the name of a source package.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #121 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 07:04:28 -0400

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 22:02:38 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The following packages from pkg-multimedia build just fine for me:
>>
>> nmu lives_2.2.4~ds0-2 . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
>> nmu chromaprint_1.1-1 . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
>> nmu idjc_0.8.14-1  . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
>> nmu silan_0.3.2-2  . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
>> nmu wxsvg_2:1.3~dfsg-1  . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
>>
> Scheduled.  Note that you need a space between -m and the message.
>
Ok

>> nmu libffms2-3_2.19.1-1 . ALL . -m"rebuild against libav10"
> That's not the name of a source package.

Sorry, that should have read:

nmu ffms2_2.19.1-1 . ALL . -m "rebuild against libav10"

Thanks


-- 
regards,
    Reinhard

Message #126 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

Cc: 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 13:32:35 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:04:28 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:

> nmu ffms2_2.19.1-1 . ALL . -m "rebuild against libav10"
> 
Scheduled.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #131 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:13:35 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2014-05-12 13:32:35, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:04:28 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> 
> > nmu ffms2_2.19.1-1 . ALL . -m "rebuild against libav10"
> > 
> Scheduled.

Please also schedule binNMUs for the following packages from stage 1:

nmu amide_1.0.5-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu aubio_0.4.1-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu audacious-plugins_3.4.3-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu bino_1.4.4-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu cantata_1.1.3.ds1-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu ffmpegthumbnailer_2.0.8-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu ffmpegthumbs_4:4.12.2-2 . amd64 armel armhf hurd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel s390x sparc . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
# fallout from the gmp breakage
gb ffmpegthumbs_4:4.12.2-2 . i386 powerpc
nmu freerdp_1.0.2-4 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu gegl_0.2.0-5 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu gnash_0.8.11~git20140419-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu goldendict_1.5.0~git20131003-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu hedgewars_0.9.20.5-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu jugglemaster_0.4-6.3 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu lebiniou_3.20-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu libphash_0.9.4-1.4 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu moc_1:2.5.0~beta2-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu motion_3.2.12+git20140228-4 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu mpd_0.18.10-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu nepomuk-core_4:4.12.4-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu qmmp_0.7.5-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu qutecom_2.2.1+dfsg1-5 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu spek_0.8.2-3.1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu squeezelite_1.6-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu survex_1.2.12-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu yorick-av_0.0.3-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."

I've run a test build for all of them and they built fine against libav
10.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #136 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:24:39 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 14:13:35 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:

> On 2014-05-12 13:32:35, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:04:28 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > 
> > > nmu ffms2_2.19.1-1 . ALL . -m "rebuild against libav10"
> > > 
> > Scheduled.
> 
> Please also schedule binNMUs for the following packages from stage 1:
> 
Scheduled.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #141 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Cc: 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:20:09 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2014-05-12 15:24:39, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 14:13:35 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> 
> > On 2014-05-12 13:32:35, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:04:28 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > 
> > > > nmu ffms2_2.19.1-1 . ALL . -m "rebuild against libav10"
> > > > 
> > > Scheduled.
> > 
> > Please also schedule binNMUs for the following packages from stage 1:
> > 
> Scheduled.

Thank you!

Please also schedule

nmu dff_1.3.0+dfsg.1-4.1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu lynkeos.app_1.2-6.2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."

from stage 1. I forgot to list these two yesterday. The remaining packages from
stage 1 needs source uploads as far as I can tell. From stage 2 the following
are ready:

nmu acoustid-fingerprinter_0.6-3 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu gmerlin-avdecoder_1.2.0~dfsg-5 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu kid3_3.1-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu mediatomb_0.12.1-5 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu xine-lib-1.2_1.2.5-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #146 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:03:46 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 13:20:09 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:

> nmu dff_1.3.0+dfsg.1-4.1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> nmu lynkeos.app_1.2-6.2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> 
> nmu acoustid-fingerprinter_0.6-3 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> nmu gmerlin-avdecoder_1.2.0~dfsg-5 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> nmu kid3_3.1-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> nmu mediatomb_0.12.1-5 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> nmu xine-lib-1.2_1.2.5-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> 
Scheduled.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #151 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

To: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>

Cc: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:00:32 +0200

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 01:20:09PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> On 2014-05-12 15:24:39, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 14:13:35 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > 
> > > On 2014-05-12 13:32:35, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:04:28 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > nmu ffms2_2.19.1-1 . ALL . -m "rebuild against libav10"
> > > > > 
> > > > Scheduled.
> > > 
> > > Please also schedule binNMUs for the following packages from stage 1:
> > > 
> > Scheduled.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Please also schedule
> 
> nmu dff_1.3.0+dfsg.1-4.1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> nmu lynkeos.app_1.2-6.2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."

Pleae add tupi, it has been tested to compile fine in unstable:

nmu tupi_0.2+git04-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."

Also I recommend to remove dvswitch from testing: It FTBFSes independent
of the libav transition for quite a while (692811) and there are no
reverse deps.

Cheers,
        Moritz

Message #156 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

Cc: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:37:58 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 17:00:32 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:

> nmu tupi_0.2+git04-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> 
Done.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #161 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 21:06:10 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 17:00:32 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:

> Also I recommend to remove dvswitch from testing: It FTBFSes independent
> of the libav transition for quite a while (692811) and there are no
> reverse deps.
> 
#692811 only affects experimental, according to the bug's version info.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #166 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

Cc: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 22:31:14 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 17:37:58 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:

> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 17:00:32 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> 
> > nmu tupi_0.2+git04-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> > 
> Done.
> 
Though #747832 is still going to block its migration.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #171 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 22:32:54 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 14:13:35 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:

> nmu yorick-av_0.0.3-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> 
test dies with a SIGFPE on kfreebsd-i386:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=yorick-av&arch=kfreebsd-i386&ver=0.0.3-2%2Bb1&stamp=1399904196

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #176 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Cc: 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 22:35:47 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2014-05-13 22:32:54, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 14:13:35 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> 
> > nmu yorick-av_0.0.3-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> > 
> test dies with a SIGFPE on kfreebsd-i386:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=yorick-av&arch=kfreebsd-i386&ver=0.0.3-2%2Bb1&stamp=1399904196

Files as #747976 earlier today.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #183 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Cc: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 18:39:21 +0200

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:31:14PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 17:37:58 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 17:00:32 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > 
> > > nmu tupi_0.2+git04-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> > > 
> > Done.
> > 
> Though #747832 is still going to block its migration.

I followed up on the bug.

I also recommend to remove renpy from testing. Porting to libav10 requires some more
invasive porting upstream and renpy is a leaf package.

Porting performous is in the works, but not done. I also recommend to remove it for now:
https://github.com/performous/performous/issues/79

Cheers,
        Moritz

Message #188 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Cc: 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 00:16:50 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Please also schedule

nmu amarok_2.8.0-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu opal_3.10.10~dfsg-2.2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu vdr-plugin-xineliboutput_1.1.0-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu vlc_2.1.4-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu xpra_0.12.3+dfsg-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu mlt_0.9.0+dfsg1-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
nmu transcode_3:1.1.7-9 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #193 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

To: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>, Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 23:18:24 -0400

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:31:14PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 17:37:58 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 17:00:32 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>> >
>> > > nmu tupi_0.2+git04-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
>> > >
>> > Done.
>> >
>> Though #747832 is still going to block its migration.
>
> I followed up on the bug.
>
> I also recommend to remove renpy from testing. Porting to libav10 requires some more
> invasive porting upstream and renpy is a leaf package.
>
> Porting performous is in the works, but not done. I also recommend to remove it for now:
> https://github.com/performous/performous/issues/79

libavg is another leaf package that could be temporarily removed from testing.


-- 
regards,
    Reinhard

Message #198 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Cc: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 20:43:47 +0200

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:31:14PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 17:37:58 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 17:00:32 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > 
> > > nmu tupi_0.2+git04-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> > > 
> > Done.
> > 
> Though #747832 is still going to block its migration.

Based on https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=747832#27 let's
remove it from testing.

In addition the kde4libs bug that broke kradio4 has been fixed (748147),
so please schedule a binNMU for it:

nmu kradio4_4.0.7-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."

Cheers,
        Moritz

Message #203 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

Cc: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 21:31:44 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 20:43:47 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:

> nmu kradio4_4.0.7-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> 
Scheduled.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #208 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>

Cc: 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: First round of binNMU request for libav 10

Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 21:36:58 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 00:16:50 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:

> Please also schedule
> 
> nmu amarok_2.8.0-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> nmu opal_3.10.10~dfsg-2.2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> nmu vdr-plugin-xineliboutput_1.1.0-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> nmu vlc_2.1.4-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> nmu mlt_0.9.0+dfsg1-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> nmu transcode_3:1.1.7-9 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."
> 
Scheduled.

> nmu xpra_0.12.3+dfsg-1 . ALL . -m "Rebuild against libav10."

Had a sourceful upload today.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #213 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

To: 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 19:54:45 -0400

Now that libav transitioned to testing, and
https://release.debian.org/transitions/ says '100%' next to the libav
transition, what's left to be done here?

Best,
Reinhard

Message #218 received at 739079@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>

To: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>, 739079@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 05:45:59 +0100

On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 19:54 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Now that libav transitioned to testing, and
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/ says '100%' next to the libav
> transition, what's left to be done here?

The old libraries need to be removed from testing.

britney's trying that, but having a few issues currently; for instance:

trying: -libavutil52/i386
skipped: -libavutil52/i386 (4 <- 56)
    got: 66+0: i-57:a-1:a-0:a-0:k-3:k-3:m-0:m-0:p-0:s-2
    * i386: choreonoid, choreonoid-dbg, choreonoid-plugins-base, fgrun, flightgear, libavcodec-extra-54, libavdevice53, libavfilter3, libavformat54, libcnoid-dev, libcnoid1, libliggghts-dev, libliggghts3, libliggghts3-dbg, libopenscenegraph-dev, libopenscenegraph99, libosgearth-dev, libosgearth3, libosgearthannotation3, libosgearthfeatures3, libosgearthqt3, libosgearthsymbology3, libosgearthutil3, libsimgear-dev, libsimgearscene3.0.0, libvtk6, libvtk6-dev, libyade, liggghts, openscenegraph, openscenegraph-plugin-citygml-shared, openscenegraph-plugin-citygml-static, openscenegraph-plugin-osgearth, osgearth, paraview, paraview-dev, paraview-python, python-vtk6, python-yade, qgis-plugin-globe, simgear-dev, tcl-vtk6, vtk6, xbmc, xbmc-bin, xbmc-pvr-argustv, xbmc-pvr-demo, xbmc-pvr-iptvsimple, xbmc-pvr-mediaportal-tvserver, xbmc-pvr-mythtv-cmyth, xbmc-pvr-nextpvr, xbmc-pvr-njoy, xbmc-pvr-tvheadend-hts, xbmc-pvr-vdr-vnsi, xbmc-pvr-vuplus, yade

The new vtk6 should be a candidate this evening, and I've aged your
openscenegraph NMU to get that migrated more quickly.

Regards,

Adam

Message #223 received at 739079-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>, 739079-done@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Reinhard Tartler <siretart@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#739079: transition: libav10

Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 10:10:55 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 05:45:59 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

> On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 19:54 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > Now that libav transitioned to testing, and
> > https://release.debian.org/transitions/ says '100%' next to the libav
> > transition, what's left to be done here?
> 
> The old libraries need to be removed from testing.
> 
Looks like that's happened now.  Closing.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.