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

Bug#888531: marked as done (transition: ruby2.5)

Your message dated Tue, 3 Apr 2018 20:23:16 +0200
with message-id <d46d570b-461b-2661-61de-8d47d1ffa00a@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#888531: transition: ruby2.5 - binNMU round #5, and next steps
has caused the Debian Bug report #888531,
regarding transition: ruby2.5
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.)


-- 
888531: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888531
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,

I would like to start the transition to ruby2.5 in unstable. General
information about Ruby transitions can be found in:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/InterpreterTransitions

ruby2.5 has been in testing for a while.

Building against ruby2.5 has been enabled in experimental, and we
already did a test rebuild against it, with pretty good results:
https://hackmd.io/EYBghgHA7AjFDMBaCZgE5EBYYCYAmiaEAxhjgKzFQCmAZtGHtTkA

So I would like to enable building against ruby2.5 in unstable, and to
effectively start the transition. Soon after we have a transition page,
I will have a first round of binNMUs to request.

Ben file:

title = "ruby2.5";
is_affected: .depends ~ /ruby2.3 | .depends ~ /ruby2.5/
is_good: .depends ~ /ruby2.5/
is_bad: .depends ~ /ruby2.3/ & !.depends ~ /ruby2.5/

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

Kernel: Linux 4.14.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=pt_BR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=pt_BR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=pt_BR:pt:en (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 10/03/18 16:37, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 09/03/18 15:53, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please binNMU:
>>
>> obexftp
>> ruby-bcrypt-pbkdf
>>
>> Now we need to discuss what to do wrt the few pending packages.
>>
>> weechat: #892072 [S|+|  ] [src:weechat] weechat: build against ruby2.5
> 
> That's got a patch, and should be fixed.
> 
>> uwsgi: #892074 [S  |  ] [src:uwsgi] uwsgi: FTBFS with ruby2.5 as default
> 
> I gave a clue about this one on the bug. Easy to fix.
> 
>> graphviz: is missing on armel, because guile-2.2-dev is missing on armel. I
>> asked on #debian-buildd and Julien told me that guile-2.2-dev brings the
>> buildds down.
> 
> Yeah, this is a problem.
> 
>> ruby-prof: I just uploaded an update that will make it build fine on s390x.
> 
> Good.
> 
>> ruby-pgplot: it's in contrib and has a dependency on a non-free package,
>> so it can't be built on buildds. I could do binary uploads myself now,
>> or ask someone who cares about it to do that, but then when it's time to
>> drop ruby2.3 I would need to do that again, and I would prefer to do it
>> just once. I just reported a serious bugs about this.
> 
> Already fixed (thanks Andreas!)
> 
>> My suggestion would be to remove weechat, uwsgi and ruby-pgplot from
>> testing, remove graphviz from testing on armel, and unblock the
>> transition. But, of course, this is your call.
> 
> No, we should fix weechat and uwsgi. The only real problem is with guile-2.2 on
> armel. I'll see what can be done there.

This is pretty much done (except for weechat testing migration). Let's fix any
possible remaining issues in the ruby2.3-rm transition.

Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: