On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > > On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > >> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > > >>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. > > >>> > > >>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in > > >>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix > > >>> yet). > > >>> > > >>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to > > >>> backport it as part of an NMU. > > >>> > > >>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team. > > >> > > >> Thanks for the update. > > >> > > >> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once > > >> subversion is fixed. > > > > > > You can go ahead with the default switch. > > > > ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping > > ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the packages > > that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1? > > Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change > the existing one? FTR: ruby2.1 has already been removed from the the list in the ruby-defaults that just went into testing, so we can start binNMUing when we have a list of packages. -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature