Re: status of 1.9[.3] and wheezy
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:09:18PM +0200]:
> I've also tried to rebuild all packages maintained by pkg-ruby-extras
> (and using gem2deb) with that version with that version. The vast
> majority built fine (inc. test suites): the new failures are
> ruby-builder ruby-ole ruby-rspec-mocks ruby-spreadsheet.
Ugh, at least two of those are mine. Ok, here comes some debugging
time!
> So there are three things to decide.
>
> 1) should we upload that version to unstable, or to experimental? I'm
> very much inclined to upload it to unstable, since it seems better than
> 1.9.2 in many regards.
Well, if the impact is so low, as it _should_ be a compatible release,
I don't see why it should not go to unstable.
> 2) should we make that version the default for wheezy? We don't need to
> decide that yet, but I think that we should seriously consider that now.
> (and I'm in favor of doing it). The transition is looking very good
> according to http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/wheezy/ .
>
> 3) if we make 1.9.3 the default, should we drop 1.8 ? I'm also in favor
> of doing that, to reduce the maintenance cost.
I am unsure here, as there _are_ several modules (I hope, less each
day) which are not 1.9.x-compatible... I do think we should make 1.9.x
the default, but not at the cost of dropping 1.8 completely.
Of course, I'm not doing the core language maintenance, so you should
only listen to me as somebody sitting in a comfortable position.
Reply to: