Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On 16/11/15 21:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 08:32:03PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 16/11/15 20:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote: On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix yet). zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to backport it as part of an NMU. Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team. >>> >>> Thanks for the update. >>> >>> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know >>> once >>> subversion is fixed. >> >> You can go ahead with the default switch. > > ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping > ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the > packages > that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of > ruby2.1? Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change the existing one? >>> >>> FTR: ruby2.1 has already been removed from the the list in the >>> ruby-defaults that just went into testing, so we can start binNMUing >>> when we have a list of packages. >> >> I can do these: >> >> emilio@tatooine:~$ grep-dctrl -s Source:Package -n -F Depends libruby2.1 >> --and >> libruby2.2 >> /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-amd64_Packages > [...] > > looks good to me Scheduling that. Emilio
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 08:32:03PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 16/11/15 20:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >>> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > >> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. > >> > >> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in > >> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix > >> yet). > >> > >> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to > >> backport it as part of an NMU. > >> > >> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team. > > > > Thanks for the update. > > > > You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know > > once > > subversion is fixed. > > You can go ahead with the default switch. > >>> > >>> ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping > >>> ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the > >>> packages > >>> that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of > >>> ruby2.1? > >> > >> Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change > >> the existing one? > > > > FTR: ruby2.1 has already been removed from the the list in the > > ruby-defaults that just went into testing, so we can start binNMUing > > when we have a list of packages. > > I can do these: > > emilio@tatooine:~$ grep-dctrl -s Source:Package -n -F Depends libruby2.1 --and > libruby2.2 > /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-amd64_Packages [...] looks good to me signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On 16/11/15 20:08, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. > > James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in > #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix > yet). > > zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to > backport it as part of an NMU. > > Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team. Thanks for the update. You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once subversion is fixed. >>> >>> You can go ahead with the default switch. >> >> ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping >> ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the >> packages >> that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1? > > Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change > the existing one? I have updated the existing one, see https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2.html Emilio
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On 16/11/15 20:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: >> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. >> >> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in >> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix >> yet). >> >> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to >> backport it as part of an NMU. >> >> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team. > > Thanks for the update. > > You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once > subversion is fixed. You can go ahead with the default switch. >>> >>> ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping >>> ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the >>> packages >>> that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1? >> >> Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change >> the existing one? > > FTR: ruby2.1 has already been removed from the the list in the > ruby-defaults that just went into testing, so we can start binNMUing > when we have a list of packages. I can do these: emilio@tatooine:~$ grep-dctrl -s Source:Package -n -F Depends libruby2.1 --and libruby2.2 /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-amd64_Packages hyperestraier (1.4.13-13) libguestfs (1:1.28.12-1) mapserver passenger qdbm raspell (1.3-1) remctl rrdtool ruby-atomic (1.1.16-2) ruby-augeas (1:0.5.0-3) ruby-bcrypt ruby-bdb ruby-blockenspiel (0.4.5-1) ruby-bluecloth ruby-bson-ext (1.10.0-2) ruby-byebug ruby-cairo (1.12.9-1) ruby-charlock-holmes (0.6.9.4.dfsg1-1) ruby-curb (0.8.8-1) ruby-dataobjects-mysql ruby-dataobjects-postgres ruby-dataobjects-sqlite3 ruby-debian (0.3.9) ruby-debug-inspector ruby-dep-selector (1.0.3-2) ruby-eb (2.6-3) ruby-escape-utils (1.0.1-3) ruby-eventmachine (1.0.7-3) ruby-exif (0.1.2-21) ruby-fast-stemmer (1.0.2-1) ruby-fast-xs (0.8.0-3) ruby-fcgi (0.9.2.1-1) ruby-ferret ruby-ffi (1.9.6debian-2) ruby-ffi-yajl (2.2.0-1) ruby-fftw3 ruby-filesystem (0.5-5.1) ruby-fusefs (0.7.0-4) ruby-gd (0.8.0-7) ruby-gherkin (2.12.2-3) ruby-github-markdown (0.6.8-1) ruby-gnome2 ruby-gnome2 ruby-god (0.13.6-1) ruby-gpgme (2.0.5-1) ruby-grib ruby-gsl (1.16.0.4+dfsg1-1) ruby-hdfeos5 (1.2-5) ruby-hiredis ruby-hitimes ruby-hpricot (0.8.6-5) ruby-http-parser.rb ruby-json ruby-kgio ruby-kyotocabinet ruby-lapack ruby-ldap (0.9.16-1) ruby-levenshtein (0.2.2-2) ruby-libvirt (0.5.1-3) ruby-libxml ruby-mecab (0.99.6-2) ruby-mpi (0.3.0-1) ruby-msgpack ruby-multibitnums (0.1.4-2) ruby-multimap ruby-mysql (2.9.1-1) ruby-mysql2 ruby-narray ruby-ncurses (1.4.8-2) ruby-netcdf (0.7.1.1-5) ruby-nfc (3.1.1-1) ruby-nio4r ruby-nokogiri (1.6.6.2+ds-2) ruby-nokogumbo ruby-odbc (0.5-2) ruby-oily-png (1.1.0-5) ruby-oj ruby-ox (2.1.1-2) ruby-password (0.5.3-4) ruby-patron ruby-pcaprub ruby-pg ruby-posix-spawn (0.3.9-1) ruby-raindrops ruby-rdiscount ruby-re2 (0.7.0-1) ruby-redcarpet ruby-redcloth ruby-rinku (1.7.3-1) ruby-rjb ruby-rmagick ruby-rpatricia (1.0.1-1) ruby-rugged ruby-sdl (2.1.3-1) ruby-sequel-pg (1.6.10-1) ruby-serialport ruby-shadow ruby-sigar ruby-sqlite3 ruby-taglib2 (0.1.5-2) ruby-termios (1.0.0-1) ruby-timfel-krb5-auth ruby-tioga ruby-tokyocabinet ruby-uconv ruby-unf-ext (0.0.7.1-1) ruby-unicode (0.4.4-2) ruby-version-sorter (2.0.0+dfsg-2) ruby-xmlparser (0.7.3-1) ruby-yajl ruby-zoom (0.4.1-6) stfl (0.22-1.2) thin unicorn (4.8.3-1) xmms2 (0.8+dfsg-14) Cheers, Emilio
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > > On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > >> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > > >>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. > > >>> > > >>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in > > >>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix > > >>> yet). > > >>> > > >>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to > > >>> backport it as part of an NMU. > > >>> > > >>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team. > > >> > > >> Thanks for the update. > > >> > > >> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once > > >> subversion is fixed. > > > > > > You can go ahead with the default switch. > > > > ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping > > ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the > > packages > > that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1? > > Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change > the existing one? FTR: ruby2.1 has already been removed from the the list in the ruby-defaults that just went into testing, so we can start binNMUing when we have a list of packages. -- Antonio Terceiro signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > >>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. > >>> > >>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in > >>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix > >>> yet). > >>> > >>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to > >>> backport it as part of an NMU. > >>> > >>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team. > >> > >> Thanks for the update. > >> > >> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once > >> subversion is fixed. > > > > You can go ahead with the default switch. > > ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping > ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the > packages > that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1? Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change the existing one? -- Antonio Terceiro signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: >>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. >>> >>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in >>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix >>> yet). >>> >>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to >>> backport it as part of an NMU. >>> >>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team. >> >> Thanks for the update. >> >> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once >> subversion is fixed. > > You can go ahead with the default switch. ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the packages that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1? Cheers, Emilio
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On 08.11.2015 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix yet). zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to backport it as part of an NMU. zeroc-ice doesn't look well maintained. I touched it in 2014 and 2015 using NMUs. So I would prefer if you would just NMU the new upstream. Matthias
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: >> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. >> >> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in >> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix >> yet). >> >> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to >> backport it as part of an NMU. >> >> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team. > > Thanks for the update. > > You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once > subversion is fixed. You can go ahead with the default switch. Cheers, Emilio
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. > > James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in > #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix > yet). > > zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to > backport it as part of an NMU. > > Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team. Thanks for the update. You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once subversion is fixed. Cheers, Emilio
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix yet). zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to backport it as part of an NMU. Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team. -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03 `-
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On 25/10/15 16:08, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [151023 00:03]: >> Thanks, and no rush. Just wanted to make sure this didn't fall under the >> cracks. > > Yeah, super sorry that this took so long. > > Here are my results, rgd. the packages still listed on the ruby2.2 > transition tracker (all on amd64): Thanks for the update. Can you open bug reports (if they don't exist yet) and make them block this one? Thanks, Emilio
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [151023 00:03]: > Thanks, and no rush. Just wanted to make sure this didn't fall under the > cracks. Yeah, super sorry that this took so long. Here are my results, rgd. the packages still listed on the ruby2.2 transition tracker (all on amd64): Fail: graphviz_2.38.0-10 needs Config->RbConfig patch subversion_1.9.2-2 swig-ruby check failure treil_1.8-2.1 make variable expansion fails (ruby related) uwsgi_2.0.11.2-2 hardcoded ruby version number redland-bindings_1.0.17.1+dfsg-1.1 explicit ruby2.1 build-dep zeroc-ice_3.5.1-6.1 needs patches for removed ruby macros ruby-pgplot_0.1.9-1 needs non-free packages, didn't try Unrelated failures: root-system_5.34.19+dfsg-1.2 B-Depends unavail libpythia8-dev subtle_0.11.3224-xi-2.1 missing freetype headers Succeed: ruby-bert_1.1.6-1_amd64 successful ruby-defaults_2.1.5.1_amd64 successful ruby-patron_0.4.20-1_amd64 successful ruby-taglib2_0.1.5-2_amd64 successful geos_3.5.0-1_amd64 successful kross-interpreters_15.08.0-1_amd64 successful marisa_0.2.4-8_amd64 successful ngraph-gtk_6.06.13-5_amd64 successful notmuch_0.20.2-2_amd64 successful obexftp_0.23-5_amd64 successful qtruby_4.14.3-1_amd64 successful ruby-gsl_1.16.0.4+dfsg1-1_amd64 successful rubyluabridge_0.8.0-1_amd64 successful vim_7.4.826-1_amd64 successful player_3.0.2+dfsg-4.2_amd64 successful Thanks, -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03 `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On 22/10/15 22:33, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:40:53PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> the remaining packages are ruby libraries who are either not ported or >> have build problems, and it is OK to have them removed from testing for >> now. >> >> Please let me know if it's OK to go forward with this, i.e. uploading >> ruby-defaults to unstable so that ruby2.2 becomes the default ruby. > > Might be best to wait until after the libstdc++ transition. > > Emilio Would it be OK for us to go ahead with this now that the worst part of of libstdc++ is done? >>> >>> Can you give an update on how many packages would FTBFS ? Are there bugs, >>> patches, or anything for those? >> >> Ping? It'd be good to get this finished eventually. > > Hi, sorry for not getting back to you yet. I will work on this and will > give you a go/no-go at the worst case during the weekend. > > Thanks for getting in touch again. Thanks, and no rush. Just wanted to make sure this didn't fall under the cracks. Cheers, Emilio
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:40:53PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > the remaining packages are ruby libraries who are either not ported or > have build problems, and it is OK to have them removed from testing for > now. > > Please let me know if it's OK to go forward with this, i.e. uploading > ruby-defaults to unstable so that ruby2.2 becomes the default ruby. > >>> > >>> Might be best to wait until after the libstdc++ transition. > >>> > >>> Emilio > >> > >> Would it be OK for us to go ahead with this now that the worst part of > >> of libstdc++ is done? > > > > Can you give an update on how many packages would FTBFS ? Are there bugs, > > patches, or anything for those? > > Ping? It'd be good to get this finished eventually. Hi, sorry for not getting back to you yet. I will work on this and will give you a go/no-go at the worst case during the weekend. Thanks for getting in touch again. -- Antonio Terceiro signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On 30/09/15 19:18, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 19/09/15 15:27, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:17:38PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> On 28/07/15 23:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote: Hello release team. We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks and didn't notice any problems worth postponing this any longer. After that is done, the following packages will need to be binNMUed: hyperestraier libguestfs mapserver marisa ngraph-gtk notmuch obexftp player qdbm qtruby raspell redland-bindings remctl root-system rrdtool rubyluabridge stfl vim xmms2 These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually: korundum kross-interpreters subversion treil uwsgi zeroc-ice weechat the remaining packages are ruby libraries who are either not ported or have build problems, and it is OK to have them removed from testing for now. Please let me know if it's OK to go forward with this, i.e. uploading ruby-defaults to unstable so that ruby2.2 becomes the default ruby. >>> >>> Might be best to wait until after the libstdc++ transition. >>> >>> Emilio >> >> Would it be OK for us to go ahead with this now that the worst part of >> of libstdc++ is done? > > Can you give an update on how many packages would FTBFS ? Are there bugs, > patches, or anything for those? Ping? It'd be good to get this finished eventually. Emilio
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On 19/09/15 15:27, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:17:38PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 28/07/15 23:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >>> Hello release team. >>> >>> We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby >>> in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks >>> and didn't notice any problems worth postponing this any longer. >>> >>> After that is done, the following packages will need to be binNMUed: >>> >>> hyperestraier >>> libguestfs >>> mapserver >>> marisa >>> ngraph-gtk >>> notmuch >>> obexftp >>> player >>> qdbm >>> qtruby >>> raspell >>> redland-bindings >>> remctl >>> root-system >>> rrdtool >>> rubyluabridge >>> stfl >>> vim >>> xmms2 >>> >>> These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually: >>> >>> korundum >>> kross-interpreters >>> subversion >>> treil >>> uwsgi >>> zeroc-ice >>> weechat >>> >>> the remaining packages are ruby libraries who are either not ported or >>> have build problems, and it is OK to have them removed from testing for >>> now. >>> >>> Please let me know if it's OK to go forward with this, i.e. uploading >>> ruby-defaults to unstable so that ruby2.2 becomes the default ruby. >> >> Might be best to wait until after the libstdc++ transition. >> >> Emilio > > Would it be OK for us to go ahead with this now that the worst part of > of libstdc++ is done? Can you give an update on how many packages would FTBFS ? Are there bugs, patches, or anything for those? Thanks, Emilio
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:17:38PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 28/07/15 23:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > Hello release team. > > > > We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby > > in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks > > and didn't notice any problems worth postponing this any longer. > > > > After that is done, the following packages will need to be binNMUed: > > > > hyperestraier > > libguestfs > > mapserver > > marisa > > ngraph-gtk > > notmuch > > obexftp > > player > > qdbm > > qtruby > > raspell > > redland-bindings > > remctl > > root-system > > rrdtool > > rubyluabridge > > stfl > > vim > > xmms2 > > > > These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually: > > > > korundum > > kross-interpreters > > subversion > > treil > > uwsgi > > zeroc-ice > > weechat > > > > the remaining packages are ruby libraries who are either not ported or > > have build problems, and it is OK to have them removed from testing for > > now. > > > > Please let me know if it's OK to go forward with this, i.e. uploading > > ruby-defaults to unstable so that ruby2.2 becomes the default ruby. > > Might be best to wait until after the libstdc++ transition. > > Emilio Would it be OK for us to go ahead with this now that the worst part of of libstdc++ is done? -- Antonio Terceiro signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 07:28:14PM -0400, James McCoy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:23:57PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > Hello release team. > > > > We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby > now? -^ yes > > in unstable. > > […] > > These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually: > > > > korundum > > kross-interpreters > > subversion > > At least subversion is due to ruby2.2 not including or depending on > ruby-test-unit, even though upstream ruby's tarball does (#791925). yes, that is fixed now. -- Antonio Terceiro signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On 28/07/15 23:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Hello release team. > > We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby > in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks > and didn't notice any problems worth postponing this any longer. > > After that is done, the following packages will need to be binNMUed: > > hyperestraier > libguestfs > mapserver > marisa > ngraph-gtk > notmuch > obexftp > player > qdbm > qtruby > raspell > redland-bindings > remctl > root-system > rrdtool > rubyluabridge > stfl > vim > xmms2 > > These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually: > > korundum > kross-interpreters > subversion > treil > uwsgi > zeroc-ice > weechat > > the remaining packages are ruby libraries who are either not ported or > have build problems, and it is OK to have them removed from testing for > now. > > Please let me know if it's OK to go forward with this, i.e. uploading > ruby-defaults to unstable so that ruby2.2 becomes the default ruby. Might be best to wait until after the libstdc++ transition. Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:23:57PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Hello release team. > > We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby now? -^ > in unstable. > […] > These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually: > > korundum > kross-interpreters > subversion At least subversion is due to ruby2.2 not including or depending on ruby-test-unit, even though upstream ruby's tarball does (#791925). Cheers, -- James GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
Hello release team. We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks and didn't notice any problems worth postponing this any longer. After that is done, the following packages will need to be binNMUed: hyperestraier libguestfs mapserver marisa ngraph-gtk notmuch obexftp player qdbm qtruby raspell redland-bindings remctl root-system rrdtool rubyluabridge stfl vim xmms2 These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually: korundum kross-interpreters subversion treil uwsgi zeroc-ice weechat the remaining packages are ruby libraries who are either not ported or have build problems, and it is OK to have them removed from testing for now. Please let me know if it's OK to go forward with this, i.e. uploading ruby-defaults to unstable so that ruby2.2 becomes the default ruby. -- Antonio Terceiro signature.asc Description: Digital signature
