Adam D. Barratt escreveu isso aí: > On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 08:51 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > Adam D. Barratt escreveu isso aí: > > > Looking through the BTS, it looks like both #679606 (in > > > ruby-hpricot) and #679847 (in ruby-xs-fast) only affect unstable > > > currently; is that correct? > > > > Yes, that is correct. However, the situation is a little more > > complicated. > [...] > > If we can't get the fixed ruby-fast-xs in wheezy, then the existing > > version of ruby-hpricot in wheezy will be fine, but we won't have > > chef-expander, which is an important piece in large-scale Debian > > deployments with chef. > > Thanks for the explanation. If it's such an important part though, it's > slightly surprising that there were no uploads to Debian (not even to > experimental) until the day before the freeze. :-( > > > This is why I am requesting this exception to be able to have > > ruby-fast-xs, the fixed ruby-hpricot and chef-expander in Wheezy. > > It's not just those three packages, fwiw. chef-expander then ends up > depending on a chain of a further six NEW packages (for a total of eight > NEW sources, most uploaded within the couple of days before the freeze). ok, I see. I will just fix the RC bug in unstable and leave wheezy alone, then. Thanks, -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature