Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>]

On 28/02/16 16:26, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:27:09PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 26/02/16 00:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> Some of the failures above have already been fixed. Please binNMU the
>>> following packages:
>>
>> Scheduled.
> 
> Thanks. All of the builds seem to have finished, but for some reason the
> transtion page still lists several of the packages in an "unknown"
> state, even though the rebuilt packages are already in the archive for a
> while. Any idea why is that?

Those "?!" are supposed to mean both is_good and is_bad match. Taking ruby-god
for example:

The "god" package has:

Depends: ruby-god

That matches is_bad

The "ruby-god" package has:

Depends: libc6 (>= 2.4), libgmp10, libruby2.2 (>= 2.2.0~1) | libruby2.3 (>=
2.3.0~preview2), ruby (>= 1:2.2) | ruby (>= 1:2.3~0)

That matches is_good.

Hence both is_good and is_bad match.

This could be solved in this tracker by changing is_bad to:

is_bad = .depends ~ /ruby2.2/ & ! .depends ~ /ruby2.3/;

I've done that, the tracker looks better now.

> The next round of binNMUs is:
> 
> hyperestraier
> remctl
> ruby-dep-selector
> ruby-fftw3
> ruby-gherkin
> ruby-github-markdown
> ruby-gnome2
> ruby-grib
> ruby-hdfeos5
> ruby-hpricot
> ruby-http-parser.rb
> ruby-lapack
> ruby-mpi
> ruby-msgpack
> ruby-multibitnums
> ruby-netcdf
> ruby-nokogumbo
> ruby-password
> ruby-raindrops
> ruby-rpam-ruby19
> ruby-sqlite3
> thin

Scheduled.

Cheers,
Emilio