Re: Bits from the Ruby team: switching to Ruby 1.9 and trasition to new policy
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 23:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 04/06/12 at 19:59 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> But now, the last step is to switch to 1.9.x as default, instead of 1.8.
> Yes, it's late in the release cycle. But:
> (0) the switch to 1.9.x as default Ruby is very important for us, since
> it is the final achievement of most of the work done during that
> cycle
> (1) we are not frozen yet
That's somewhat of a self-fulfilling statement. Unless we take the
decision to freeze knowing that some changes aren't complete, then
adding more larger-scale changes affects our ability to freeze (and
certainly our ability to release). (That's not a statement either way
about the specifics of the wheezy freeze, fwiw...)
> (2) looking at the current number of RC bugs, it seems unlikely that we
> release in July
I don't think anyone ever suggested that we were. If someone did, they
need shooting^Wgently educating. More RC bugs to tackle does tend to
imply a longer or later freeze though.
> (3) most of the packages that need fixing are leaf packages, or packages
> for which the Ruby bindings can be easily disabled
That's one way of getting rid of the bugs, yes. :-)
> I will do an archive rebuild tomorrow with the updated gem2deb, and try
> to get a better overview of FTBFS caused by this change.
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 00:42 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I've tagged new FTBFS that could be linked to Ruby 1.9.x:
>
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=default19;users=debian-ruby@lists.debian.org
>
> There might be some more: I need to rebuild the packages that were
> failing due to the gem2deb bug that I fixed earlier tonight.
Should the list above now be reasonably complete? It looks like there's
currently around 50 unresolved bugs, although I admit I haven't checked
the detail of each report.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: