Re: Freeze exception for ruby-fast-xs 0.8.0-3
]] "Adam D. Barratt"
(please Cc me on replies, I'm not subscribed to the list)
> 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. :-(
It's been developed and maintained in an upstream apt repository and
while I was in touch with them some years ago about getting it into
Debian, the effort was only seriously started early this summer.
Upstream has been doing packaging in their own repository for quite some
time (as can be evidenced by the changelog).
> > 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).
They are at least in part based on chef's upstream packaging of
same. And, they're scheduled to go in today anyway, so the only
difference to whether ruby-fast-xs 0.8.0-3 is approved or not is whether
that version plus chef-expander goes in, not the rest of the ruby
packages.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Reply to: