Re: Bug#813237: transition: ruby2.3
On 28/02/16 16:26, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:27:09PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 26/02/16 00:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> Some of the failures above have already been fixed. Please binNMU the
>>> following packages:
>>
>> Scheduled.
>
> Thanks. All of the builds seem to have finished, but for some reason the
> transtion page still lists several of the packages in an "unknown"
> state, even though the rebuilt packages are already in the archive for a
> while. Any idea why is that?
Those "?!" are supposed to mean both is_good and is_bad match. Taking ruby-god
for example:
The "god" package has:
Depends: ruby-god
That matches is_bad
The "ruby-god" package has:
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.4), libgmp10, libruby2.2 (>= 2.2.0~1) | libruby2.3 (>=
2.3.0~preview2), ruby (>= 1:2.2) | ruby (>= 1:2.3~0)
That matches is_good.
Hence both is_good and is_bad match.
This could be solved in this tracker by changing is_bad to:
is_bad = .depends ~ /ruby2.2/ & ! .depends ~ /ruby2.3/;
I've done that, the tracker looks better now.
> The next round of binNMUs is:
>
> hyperestraier
> remctl
> ruby-dep-selector
> ruby-fftw3
> ruby-gherkin
> ruby-github-markdown
> ruby-gnome2
> ruby-grib
> ruby-hdfeos5
> ruby-hpricot
> ruby-http-parser.rb
> ruby-lapack
> ruby-mpi
> ruby-msgpack
> ruby-multibitnums
> ruby-netcdf
> ruby-nokogumbo
> ruby-password
> ruby-raindrops
> ruby-rpam-ruby19
> ruby-sqlite3
> thin
Scheduled.
Cheers,
Emilio
Reply to: