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

Bug#995587: transition: ruby3.0-add



Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 2021-10-20 09:45:10 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Control: tag -1 - moreinfo
> 
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 03:46:11PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 moreinfo
> > 
> > On 2021-10-15 06:44:36 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > 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?

Yes, please go ahead

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: