Re: ruby1.9.1 migration to testing
On 03/11/11 at 21:27 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> 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
> > migrate.
> > (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
> > forward.
> 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.
Given I hadn't got a reply, I implemented (3) and uploaded 220.127.116.11-1 to
unstable. I haven't checked very closely, but it's very unlikely that
those problems are regressions, so keeping the testing version isn't a