Bug#995587: transition: ruby3.0-add
On 10/20/21 2:45 PM, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 03:46:11PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
>> On 2021-10-15 06:44:36 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 02, 2021 at 03:14:39PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>>> Severity: normal
>>>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>>>> Usertags: transition
>>>>
>>>> We would like to add support for ruby3.0 in ruby-defaults.
>>>>
>>>> Ben file:
>>>>
>>>> title = "ruby3.0-add";
>>>> is_affected = (.depends ~ /ruby2.7 | .depends ~ /ruby3.0/) & !.source ~ /^(ruby2.7|ruby3.0|ruby-defaults)$/);
>>>> is_good = .depends ~ /ruby3.0/;
>>>> is_bad = .depends ~ /ruby2.7/ & !.depends ~ /ruby3.0/;
>>>>
>>>> We already did a mass rebuild some time ago, and the results don't look
>>>> bad. We should be doing a new one soon, and will come up with a list of
>>>> binNMUs
>>>
>>> This is a friendly ping. We would like to make the switch in unstable
>>> soon and start doing binNMUs.
>>>
>>> We have these bugs related to this transition:
>>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ruby3.0;users=debian-ruby@lists.debian.org
>>>
>>> Most of those bugs are for leaf libraries. We already started fixing the
>>> ones that block a lof of other (e.g. the ones with C extensions that
>>> FTBFS with ruby3.0) so they are ready to be binNMUed.
>>
>> ruby3.0 isn't in testing yet - it currently fails to build on ppc64el.
>> So let's at least wait until it migrated.
>
> ruby3.0 is now in testing. Can we go ahead with this?
There are 169 packages affected by the transition according to the
tracker, the ruby3.0 usertag has 152 unresolved ftbfs bugreports.
Does it really make sense to start this transition when most rdeps fail
to build?
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
Reply to: