On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 03:12:17PM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 10/20/21 2:45 PM, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 03:46:11PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > >> On 2021-10-15 06:44:36 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > >>> On Sat, Oct 02, 2021 at 03:14:39PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > >>>> Package: release.debian.org > >>>> Severity: normal > >>>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org > >>>> Usertags: transition > >>>> > >>>> We would like to add support for ruby3.0 in ruby-defaults. > >>>> > >>>> Ben file: > >>>> > >>>> title = "ruby3.0-add"; > >>>> is_affected = (.depends ~ /ruby2.7 | .depends ~ /ruby3.0/) & !.source ~ /^(ruby2.7|ruby3.0|ruby-defaults)$/); > >>>> is_good = .depends ~ /ruby3.0/; > >>>> is_bad = .depends ~ /ruby2.7/ & !.depends ~ /ruby3.0/; > >>>> > >>>> We already did a mass rebuild some time ago, and the results don't look > >>>> bad. We should be doing a new one soon, and will come up with a list of > >>>> binNMUs > >>> > >>> This is a friendly ping. We would like to make the switch in unstable > >>> soon and start doing binNMUs. > >>> > >>> We have these bugs related to this transition: > >>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ruby3.0;users=debian-ruby@lists.debian.org > >>> > >>> Most of those bugs are for leaf libraries. We already started fixing the > >>> ones that block a lof of other (e.g. the ones with C extensions that > >>> FTBFS with ruby3.0) so they are ready to be binNMUed. > >> > >> ruby3.0 isn't in testing yet - it currently fails to build on ppc64el. > >> So let's at least wait until it migrated. > > > > ruby3.0 is now in testing. Can we go ahead with this? > > There are 169 packages affected by the transition according to the > tracker, the ruby3.0 usertag has 152 unresolved ftbfs bugreports. > > Does it really make sense to start this transition when most rdeps fail > to build? Yes. Those two sets of packages are more or less distinct. The only intersection is of packages that have C extensions (and thus a dependency on the specific ruby versions it was build against) *and* to build against ruby3.0. Most of the FTBFS bugs are against pure-Ruby packages that fail against ruby3.0, and are not even listed in the transition tracker. A good part of the packages that *are* listed in the transition will be good after a binNMU. To fix those we need to have ruby3.0 as a supported version in unstable in the first place. Also as we are "just" adding ruby3.0 support, this has little effect on users since ruby2.7 is still the default.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature