On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 21:51:28 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 16/01/12 at 21:20 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > ruby1.9.1 is known to be broken on ia64 (see #593141). It currently > > builds only because the test suite is disabled on that architecture, but > > the fact that other Ruby packages fail to build on ia64 doesn't surprise > > me. > > > > Dear release team, at some point before the wheezy release, we need to > > decide what to do with Ruby 1.9.X on ia64. It has been broken for > > months, and hasn't seen any activity in Debian (#539141) or upstream > > (http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/5246). > > > > I think that removing it (with all its rev-depends) makes more sense > > than shipping a known-broken Ruby. > > Dear RT, > > If you prefer the option of shipping a known-broken ruby1.9.3 (on ia64), > maybe it would be better to tag this bug wheezy-ignore now? > Removal would be second best after making it work, IMO. If we know it doesn't work at all then there's no point shipping it. If it kinda sorta works but not completely, wheezy-ignore might make more sense. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature