Your message dated Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:03:06 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#693010: unblock: bundler/1.1.4-6
has caused the Debian Bug report #693010,
regarding unblock: bundler/1.1.4-6
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
693010: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693010
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package bundler
In bundler 1.2.0 a new keyword was added to the Gemfile DSL,
named 'ruby' which allows users to specify a ruby version.
Upstream has a patch in 1.1.5 that basically ignores this keyword
but allows installation (otherwise, bundler would just abort).
Applying this patch is the only change from the version
currently in testing. 1.1.4-6 should now be in the t-p-u queue.
Thanks for considering this.
unblock bundler/1.1.4-6
debdiff bundler_1.1.4-5.dsc bundler_1.1.4-6.dsc follows:
diff -Nru bundler-1.1.4/debian/changelog bundler-1.1.4/debian/changelog
--- bundler-1.1.4/debian/changelog 2012-08-16 17:55:14.000000000 +0200
+++ bundler-1.1.4/debian/changelog 2012-11-12 01:02:15.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+bundler (1.1.4-6) testing-proposed-updates; urgency=low
+
+ * Apply patch from upstream 1.1.5 to be compatible with gems
+ that expect a new keyword introduced in bundler 1.2.
+ Thanks to Martin Schuerrer for pointing this out.
+
+ -- Christian Hofstaedtler <[email protected]> Mon, 12 Nov 2012
01:00:08 +0100
+
bundler (1.1.4-5) unstable; urgency=low
* Team upload
diff -Nru bundler-1.1.4/debian/patches/1.1.5-special-case-ruby-directive.patch
bundler-1.1.4/debian/patches/1.1.5-special-case-ruby-directive.patch
--- bundler-1.1.4/debian/patches/1.1.5-special-case-ruby-directive.patch
1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ bundler-1.1.4/debian/patches/1.1.5-special-case-ruby-directive.patch
2012-11-12 00:57:56.000000000 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+commit 4f9f810fa52abf3923442d6dad070607daeb3d64
+Author: Terence Lee <[email protected]>
+Date: Tue Jul 17 15:20:20 2012 -0500
+
+ special case `ruby` directive
+
+ This is light of the upcoming 1.2.0 release which adds this feature.
+ This way people still using 1.1.x can run 1.2.0 Gemfiles that employ
+ this feature and get a notification about upgrading.
+
+diff --git a/lib/bundler/dsl.rb b/lib/bundler/dsl.rb
+index 286b6d4..dd2148c 100644
+--- a/lib/bundler/dsl.rb
++++ b/lib/bundler/dsl.rb
+@@ -163,6 +163,12 @@ module Bundler
+ @env = old
+ end
+
++ def ruby(*args)
++ msg = "Ignoring `ruby` directive. This is a feature added to Bundler
1.2.0 \n" \
++ "and higher. Please upgrade if you would like to use it. \n\n"
++ Bundler.ui.warn msg
++ end
++
+ # Deprecated methods
+
+ def self.deprecate(name, replacement = nil)
+diff --git a/spec/bundler/dsl_spec.rb b/spec/bundler/dsl_spec.rb
+index 4f50c3c..29b4b32 100644
+--- a/spec/bundler/dsl_spec.rb
++++ b/spec/bundler/dsl_spec.rb
+@@ -26,5 +26,26 @@ describe Bundler::Dsl do
+ lambda { Bundler::Dsl.evaluate(bundled_app("Gemfile"), nil, true) }.
+ should raise_error(Bundler::GemfileError)
+ end
++
++ it "should special case the ruby directive" do
++ gemfile <<-G
++ ruby "1.9.3"
++ G
++ lambda { Bundler::Dsl.evaluate(bundled_app("Gemfile"), nil, true) }.
++ should_not raise_error(Bundler::GemfileError)
++ end
++
++ it "should special case the ruby directive and throws a warning" do
++ install_gemfile <<-G
++ source "file://#{gem_repo1}"
++
++ ruby "1.9.3"
++
++ gem "foo"
++ G
++
++ out.should include("Ignoring `ruby` directive")
++ bundled_app("Gemfile.lock").should exist
++ end
+ end
+ end
diff -Nru bundler-1.1.4/debian/patches/series
bundler-1.1.4/debian/patches/series
--- bundler-1.1.4/debian/patches/series 2012-08-16 17:55:14.000000000 +0200
+++ bundler-1.1.4/debian/patches/series 2012-11-12 00:58:11.000000000 +0100
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
fix-manpage-warning.patch
+1.1.5-special-case-ruby-directive.patch
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (990, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 19:23 +0100, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Adam D. Barratt <[email protected]> [121112 10:52]:
> > On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 01:22 +0100, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > > In bundler 1.2.0 a new keyword was added to the Gemfile DSL,
> > > named 'ruby' which allows users to specify a ruby version.
> > > Upstream has a patch in 1.1.5 that basically ignores this keyword
> > > but allows installation (otherwise, bundler would just abort).
> >
> > What's the likelihood of such a combination (i.e. older bundler with
> > newer files) occurring during wheezy's lifetime?
>
> Heroku recommends [1] switching to this new keyword over their
> legacy configuration variables. I expect various smaller open source
> projects (which might never get packaged) will just put this into
> their Gemfile.
They presumably also won't get the functionality they're expecting,
however. Still, that seems better than completely failing.
[...]
> > > Applying this patch is the only change from the version
> > > currently in testing. 1.1.4-6 should now be in the t-p-u queue.
> >
> > It is. Whether is should be is a different question, given the lack of
> > pre-upload discussion. ;-p
>
> If the upload caused any harm at this point, I'm sorry.
No harm, but uploads to t-p-u are intended to be reviewed and agreed
beforehand. The buildd network automatically picks up the uploads and it
saves work for both the release team and maintainers if we don't have to
worry about multiple uploads.
In this case I'd have proposed a version of 1.1.4-5+deb7u1 instead. :-)
Approve hint added; thanks.
Regards,
Adam
--- End Message ---
