On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 08:32:03PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 16/11/15 20:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > 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. > > I can do these: > > emilio@tatooine:~$ grep-dctrl -s Source:Package -n -F Depends libruby2.1 --and > libruby2.2 > /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-amd64_Packages [...] looks good to me
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature