Re: ruby1.9.1 migration to testing
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 14:11:26 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> At this point, I'm confident that we can reach a (at least partially)
> working Ruby on kfreebsd, sparc and armel at some point. I'm less
> confident about ia64.
> Question: what should we do in the meantime? Options are:
> (1) keep 1.9.3~rc1-1 in unstable until all the issues are fixed.
> (2) build it with nocheck on ia64, sparc, kfreebsd, so that it can
> (3) disable test suite on ia64, sparc, kfreebsd until issues are fixed,
> so that it can migrate.
> (4) remove ruby1.9.1 binary packages on ia64, sparc, kfreebsd for now
> (not really an option due to the large number of reverse dependencies).
> The version in testing is also affected by most of those issues, and was
> uploaded by porters after a nocheck build on some architectures.
> My preference is 3,2,4,1 but I wanted to check with you before going
I don't think knowingly shipping a broken package is ok, which means 1
and 4 have my preference. I'm assuming the testsuite failures really
mean ruby is broken on those archs; if the failures were for fringe
features then my answer would probably be different. I'm also assuming
the current version in testing works better; if not then there's no
point keeping the newer one out because of this.