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

Bug#813237: marked as done (transition: ruby2.3)

Your message dated Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:47:20 +0200
with message-id <57125E88.8060205@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3 / followup with -rm transition?
has caused the Debian Bug report #813237,
regarding transition: ruby2.3
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.)


-- 
813237: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813237
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

Hi,

We want to ship ruby2.3 in stretch, so we must start the transition now.
The Ruby transitions are done in phases, as described in

https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/InterpreterTransitions

We are now in phase 1: I have just uploaded ruby-defaults enabling
builds against ruby2.3 (besides ruby2.2) to experimental, and we will
start test rebuilds ASAP. I am filing this bug now to keep this
transition under the radar of both the Release and Ruby teams.

Ben file:

title = "ruby2.3";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libruby2.2" | .depends ~ "libruby2.3";
is_good = .depends ~ "libruby2.3";
is_bad = ! .depends ~ "libruby2.3";

Note about the ben file statements above: at this stage, packages will
gain ruby2.3 support but won't lose support for ruby2.2, so "bad"
packages are indeed just the ones that don't have ruby2.3 support yet.

I will let you know when we are ready to begin rebuilds on unstable, but
before even uploading ruby-defaults enabling ruby2.3 builds there.

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

Kernel: Linux 4.3.0-1-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: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 26/03/16 09:23, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 25/03/16 18:02, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>> * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org> [160322 10:39]:
>>> rrdtool and ruby-tokyocabinet failed to build (as expected given their RC
>>> bugs). ruby-mpi failed on mips*, can you look at that and open a bug?
>>>
>>> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2-rm.html
>>
>> ruby-tokyocabinet and rrdtool apparently got fixed in the meantime.
>>
>> This leaves us with:
>>
>> - libguestfs - #815409 / #816610
>> - ruby-mpi - #818909
>> - ruby-pgplot - doesn't migrate because of #817901 (missing arm64 build / pending RM)
>> - uwsgi - doesn't migrate, but i don't understand why
> 
> It needs php5 to migrate.
> 
>> >From a dak rm perspective, only these need solving:
>>
>> libguestfs: ruby-guestfs [amd64 armel armhf i386 mips mipsel powerpc ppc64el s390x]
>> ruby-pgplot/contrib: ruby-pgplot [amd64 i386]
>> uwsgi: uwsgi-plugin-rack-ruby2.2

All the issues are solved and ruby2.2 is now gone from both testing and unstable.

Closing.

Cheers,
Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: