Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3 / followup with -rm transition?

On 25/03/16 18:02, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [160322 10:39]: >> rrdtool and ruby-tokyocabinet failed to build (as expected given their RC >> bugs). ruby-mpi failed on mips*, can you look at that and open a bug? >> >>

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3 / followup with -rm transition?

* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [160322 10:39]: > rrdtool and ruby-tokyocabinet failed to build (as expected given their RC > bugs). ruby-mpi failed on mips*, can you look at that and open a bug? > > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2-rm.html ruby-tokyocabinet and

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3 / followup with -rm transition?

Control: affects 818909 src:ruby-mpi On 22/03/16 10:22, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 22/03/16 00:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 21/03/16 19:20, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: Hello, I think we're done with the ruby2.3 transition now (apart from libguestfs/mips). It'd be good if we

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3 / followup with -rm transition?

On 22/03/16 00:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 21/03/16 19:20, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: Hello, I think we're done with the ruby2.3 transition now (apart from libguestfs/mips). It'd be good if we could do the followup ruby2.2-rm transition soonish. What does -release think about

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3 / followup with -rm transition?

On 21/03/16 19:20, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: Hello, I think we're done with the ruby2.3 transition now (apart from libguestfs/mips). It'd be good if we could do the followup ruby2.2-rm transition soonish. What does -release think about that? Sure. I have added a tracker and scheduled the

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3 / followup with -rm transition?

Hello, I think we're done with the ruby2.3 transition now (apart from libguestfs/mips). It'd be good if we could do the followup ruby2.2-rm transition soonish. What does -release think about that? Thanks, -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

Looks like we missed xapian-bindings. I've given it a quick test rebuild on amd64, and it builds correctly for 2.3. Not sure how this works, but ruby-xapian manages to not depend on any librubyX.Y package!? Thank you, -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler : :' : Debian Developer

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

Just so everybody has the current state: - weechat #816312 has a patch, could NMU if nothing happens in the next few days - uwsgi #816315 sitting in binNEW - subversion - just sent bugmail - libguestfs #816610 / qemu #815409 - ruby-pgplot is in contrib, can't remember what we usually did,

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On 04/03/16 19:01, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > - ruby-pgplot is in contrib, can't remember what we usually did, > I'll ping the maintainer. That build-depends on packages from non-free, so you need a manual upload with binaries for all architectures where the package is currently built (so

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On 03/03/16 04:52, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 05:10:54PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 02/03/16 13:25, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: >>> Emilio, >>> >>> I think we're quite close to be able to drop 2.2 - it's already in >>> experimental, we're quite confident it

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 05:10:54PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 02/03/16 13:25, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > > Emilio, > > > > I think we're quite close to be able to drop 2.2 - it's already in > > experimental, we're quite confident it works, etc. > > > > Right now we know that

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On 02/03/16 13:25, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > Emilio, > > I think we're quite close to be able to drop 2.2 - it's already in > experimental, we're quite confident it works, etc. > > Right now we know that uwsgi and weechat will need manual fixing and > there are open bugs against them

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

* Christian Hofstaedtler [160302 13:25]: > When do you think it would be ok for us to drop 2.2? We'll need > another round of binNMUs for all the packages listed on the tracker. > (We're running another test rebuild of those right now.) >From our test rebuild, those packages

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

Emilio, I think we're quite close to be able to drop 2.2 - it's already in experimental, we're quite confident it works, etc. Right now we know that uwsgi and weechat will need manual fixing and there are open bugs against them (#816315, #816312). When do you think it would be ok for us to drop

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On 01/03/16 12:48, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:48:12PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 29/02/16 15:50, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: >>> Emilio, >>> >>> * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [160224 19:03]: >>> > ruby-zoom >>> >>> Could you try a g-b

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:48:12PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 29/02/16 15:50, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > > Emilio, > > > > * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [160224 19:03]: > > > >>> ruby-zoom > > > > Could you try a g-b on mipsel for this? > > Done. Thanks; can

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On 29/02/16 15:50, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > Emilio, > > * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [160224 19:03]: > >>> ruby-zoom > > Could you try a g-b on mipsel for this? Done. Emilio

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3: another round of binNMUs

On 29/02/16 15:07, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Hi, > > Please binNMU the following packages: > > unicorn > ruby-oj > passenger Scheduled. Emilio

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

Emilio, * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [160224 19:03]: > > ruby-zoom Could you try a g-b on mipsel for this? Thanks, Christian -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03 `-

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3: another round of binNMUs

Hi, Please binNMU the following packages: unicorn ruby-oj passenger I will now test the switch to ruby2.3 as default in experimental, and test rebuilding all the missing packages, which are supposed to only link against the default Ruby. -- Antonio Terceiro

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:19:51PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 28/02/16 16:26, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:27:09PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> On 26/02/16 00:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > >>> Some of the failures above have

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On 28/02/16 16:26, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:27:09PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 26/02/16 00:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >>> Some of the failures above have already been fixed. Please binNMU the >>> following packages: >> >> Scheduled. > >

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

Hi, On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:27:09PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 26/02/16 00:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > Some of the failures above have already been fixed. Please binNMU the > > following packages: > > Scheduled. Thanks. All of the builds seem to have finished, but for some

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On 26/02/16 00:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Some of the failures above have already been fixed. Please binNMU the > following packages: Scheduled. Cheers, Emilio

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

Hi, On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 06:44:52PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Control: tags -1 confirmed > > On 24/02/16 11:38, Antonio Terceiro wrote: [...] > > I would like to add support for building for ruby2.3 in unstable. That > > means uploading the version of ruby-defaults in

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

Control: tags -1 confirmed On 24/02/16 11:38, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:56:27PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 30/01/16 19:18, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >>> Package: release.debian.org >>> Severity: normal >>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org >>>

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:56:27PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 30/01/16 19:18, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: transition > > > > Hi, > > > > We want to ship ruby2.3 in

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On 30/01/16 19:18, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Hi, > > We want to ship ruby2.3 in stretch, so we must start the transition now. > The Ruby transitions are done in phases, as

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 04:18:16PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > I am filing this bug now to keep this transition under the radar of > both the Release and Ruby teams. Of course I meant "on the radar", not under. ;-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hi, We want to ship ruby2.3 in stretch, so we must start the transition now. The Ruby transitions are done in phases, as described in