Re: Bug#1115340: transition: glib2.0 2.86

Control: tags -1 = confirmed

On 06/10/2025 11:58, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 at 20:03:35 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> I think this sort-of-transition is at a point where we can go ahead
>> whenever the release team are ready for it.
> 
> Does the release team have an idea of when we will be able to do this
> transition?
> 
> Unfortunately, some of the changes that were made in GLib-related
> packages in preparation for this transition have caused regressions:
> GioUnix objects exposed by pygobject do not accept the appropriate
> arguments for their methods, causing a functional regression in at least
> gnome-tweaks
> (<https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1117444#17>). This
> has caused several contributors to propose well-intentioned but wrong
> patches for gnome-tweaks that would make it regress (again) after the
> GLib 2.86 transition goes through, and I'm concerned that similar
> patches might already have been applied in other packages without us
> noticing.
> 
> One way to resolve this would be to do the GLib 2.86 transition, breaking
> rebuilds of glib-d (which is depended on by one leaf package,
> appstream-generator) but fixing the runtime regression in pygobject.
> 
> Another way to resolve this would be to revise the pygobject patches so
> that their effect is only applied when GLib is >= 2.86, or to revert
> them for now and then reapply them (with versioned Breaks) when we do
> this transition. But it seems unnecessary to do that (waste of time +
> risk of regressions) if this transition is imminent anyway...

Looks like the pygobject bug is fixed now, and only the glib-d bug remains. 
Let's go ahead with this and bump the glib-d bug to serious.

Cheers,
Emilio