On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:40:53PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >>>> the remaining packages are ruby libraries who are either not ported or > >>>> have build problems, and it is OK to have them removed from testing for > >>>> now. > >>>> > >>>> Please let me know if it's OK to go forward with this, i.e. uploading > >>>> ruby-defaults to unstable so that ruby2.2 becomes the default ruby. > >>> > >>> Might be best to wait until after the libstdc++ transition. > >>> > >>> Emilio > >> > >> Would it be OK for us to go ahead with this now that the worst part of > >> of libstdc++ is done? > > > > Can you give an update on how many packages would FTBFS ? Are there bugs, > > patches, or anything for those? > > Ping? It'd be good to get this finished eventually. Hi, sorry for not getting back to you yet. I will work on this and will give you a go/no-go at the worst case during the weekend. Thanks for getting in touch again. -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature