On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 06:13:31PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:22:00 +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > > > On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:20:07 +0100 > > Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > To recap: ruby1.9.1 on ia64 is broken, neglected and lucas as one of > > its maintainers agrees to remove it on ia64. > > > > Dear release team: How do we move this forward? Should I follow > > http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals? > > > Start by making a list of affected packages. Then figure out which one > would need complete removal and which ones need source changes to > disable the ruby parts on ia64. Then run away screaming. Revisiting your previous suggestion about this ... > 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. I would say it does "kinda sorta works but not completely" ... so maybe wheezy-ignore should be the case. Yes, it segfaults when building a single package on ia64, and will probably segfault in a specific point when running its own test suite¹, but apart from that, we don't have evidence suggesting that ruby1.9.1 is completely broken on ia64. ¹ test suite which is known to exercise the code in interesting and not always realistic ways. It would be nice to read reports from people actually using ruby1.9.1 on ia64, though. -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature