On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:35:40PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Yes, I very much agree with you, we (that means you, thanks for > volunteering! ;-) ) should try to get all maintainers to do the > migration. As the changes are not really disruptive, there is not > *much* risk of disrupting currently existing packages, so it should > pose no problems to the upcoming freeze. I wrote a first draft available on gobby.debian.org, under Teams/RubyExtras/transition_to_new_policy.txt. Before more polishing, could you please read/review/criticise/edit/improve (constructively :D)? On the same topic, what is the status of the Ruby policy draft in the ruby-policy directory? It would be great to have a version available somewhere as a reference for maintainers of Ruby packages. > > On another topic: I see that many transitional lib*-ruby* packages have not > > moved to the oldlibs category. Unless there are objections, I am > > willing to file the bugs against ftp.master.org (starting from Thursday, > > 22nd of March) to solve these "override disparity" issues. > Right. And, of course, file them as bugs as well for those packages as > well. FTP masters closed 92 bugs this week end due to override disparity issues with our packages. I think that we are (almost) ok on this. Cédric
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature