On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 23:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 04/06/12 at 19:59 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > But now, the last step is to switch to 1.9.x as default, instead of 1.8. > Yes, it's late in the release cycle. But: > (0) the switch to 1.9.x as default Ruby is very important for us, since > it is the final achievement of most of the work done during that > cycle > (1) we are not frozen yet
That's somewhat of a self-fulfilling statement. Unless we take the decision to freeze knowing that some changes aren't complete, then adding more larger-scale changes affects our ability to freeze (and certainly our ability to release). (That's not a statement either way about the specifics of the wheezy freeze, fwiw...) > (2) looking at the current number of RC bugs, it seems unlikely that we > release in July I don't think anyone ever suggested that we were. If someone did, they need shooting^Wgently educating. More RC bugs to tackle does tend to imply a longer or later freeze though. > (3) most of the packages that need fixing are leaf packages, or packages > for which the Ruby bindings can be easily disabled That's one way of getting rid of the bugs, yes. :-) > I will do an archive rebuild tomorrow with the updated gem2deb, and try > to get a better overview of FTBFS caused by this change. On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 00:42 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > I've tagged new FTBFS that could be linked to Ruby 1.9.x: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=default19;[email protected] > > There might be some more: I need to rebuild the packages that were > failing due to the gem2deb bug that I fixed earlier tonight. Should the list above now be reasonably complete? It looks like there's currently around 50 unresolved bugs, although I admit I haven't checked the detail of each report. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
