[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#789077: marked as done (transition: ruby2.2)

Your message dated Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:32:06 +0100
with message-id <564E0796.3080304@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #789077,
regarding transition: ruby2.2
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
789077: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=789077
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

This transition will be used to track which packages need to be rebuilt
with Ruby 2.2 suport before we make it the default. Ruby 2.1 is still
supported, and only after 2.2 becomes the default we will start another
transition to phase 2.1 out.

Ben file:

title = "ruby2.2";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libruby2.1" | .depends ~ "libruby2.2";
is_good = .depends ~ "libruby2.2";
is_bad = ! .depends ~ "libruby2.2" ;

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers buildd-unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'buildd-unstable'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.0.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=pt_BR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=pt_BR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 16/11/15 22:09, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 16/11/15 21:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>> 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
> 
> Scheduling that.

And with some hints and a couple of removals, I was able to remove ruby2.1 from
testing.

Let's consider this done now!

Cheers,
Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: