Re: Freeze exception for ruby-fast-xs 0.8.0-3
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 01:02 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] "Adam D. Barratt"
> > Fair point. It's still somewhat stretching the edges of the unblock
> > criteria though, given that chef-expander's exception is based purely
> > on the grounds of it being in unstable at the right time (with, as you
> > know, some debate as to whether NEW packages should have been granted
> > an exception even then) and the bug in ruby-hpricot doesn't affect the
> > version of the package in wheezy.
>
> Agreed on the stretching part. As for the bug in ruby-hpricot not
> affecting the package in wheezy, that's debatable, given the package in
> wheezy has an undeclared conflict with another package in the archive.
> (Please forgive me if I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't think the
> criteria has been «in the same suite» in the past, but rather whether
> it's got an undeclared conflict with any package in the archive. (Not
> that this helps, given what I want to get transitioned is ruby-fast-xs,
> though. :-))
It's a reasonable point, but no, it doesn't actually help with the
r-f-xs unblock. ;-)
> On the other hand, I think that not providing chef-expander (but the
> rest of the chef server stack) in wheezy is providing our users with an
> inferior experience compared to what I think we can offer them.
I've been debating this point over the past few days and under the
circumstances I'm prepared to be a little flexible and grant the
unblock. Hopefully we won't see any further issues arise with the
packages.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: