On 2022-11-30 09:14:55 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 05:35:18PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > Hi Antonio > > > > On 2022-11-23 13:13:37 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:00:57PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > > > On 2022-11-22 21:53:31 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > > > > > Hi Lucas, > > > > > > > > > > On 22-11-2022 17:03, Lucas Kanashiro wrote: > > > > > > After discussing with Antonio, since our deadline to finish the > > > > > > transition is approaching, we decided to already enable ruby3.1 as > > > > > > the > > > > > > default and remove ruby3.0 in a single step. > > > > > > > > > > I may be remembering wrong (it's a bit late), but isn't the change of > > > > > the > > > > > default a forward rebuild, while removal is a backward rebuild (I > > > > > mean in > > > > > the dependency tree)? If that's true, I think doing it in two steps is > > > > > easier to manage, as packages can then migrate on their own and don't > > > > > need a > > > > > lock step migration. > > > > > > > > That's correct. I'd prefer to handle this with two trackers. > > > > > > Fair enough. I will update ruby-defaults accordingly. Is it OK for us to > > > start the transition in unstable? > > > > I'd like protobuf to migrate first which is currently doing its own > > transition. Afer that, we can go ahead with the switch to 3.1 as > > default. > > protobuf migrate a few days ago, so I just uploaded ruby-defaults. > Please binNMU these packages: > > epic5 > graphviz > ignition-math > kamailio > klayout > kross-interpreters > libprelude > marisa > ngraph-gtk > notmuch > obexftp > redland-bindings > subtle > subversion > vim-command-t > weechat > xapian-bindings
binNMUs scheduled Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
