On 02/01/2019 21:44, Cédric Boutillier wrote: > > Hi! > > I wanted to fix > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=912245 > in ruby-nio4r about too small RSA keys in tests. > > I see that experimental contains ruby-nio4r 2.3.x for several months, > and reverse dependencies build successfully [1]. I pushed and 2.3.1 with > a fix for #912245 to experimental. > > Praveen, Sruthi, Is there a reason for this new version to be still in > experimental or is it safe to upload it to unstable? It was in experimental for rails5. I am re-uploading rails5 and its dependencies to unstable today. So will upload ruby-nio4r also. > More generally, is there a place where are listed packages with version > in experimental with the reason why they are not in unstable? Following > reverse (build)dependencies, one often goes back to gitlab or diaspora, > as the big softwares consuming Ruby libraries, but it is not easy to see > where in the path problems are. And given the number of packages under > the team's umbrella, it does not scale. > > What about using explicitly the Breaks statement of the control file for > the version uploaded to experimental? Also, what about using > another branch than master (like 'experimental') to push these changes, > as it makes things a bit more difficult that it should to update > packages in unstable. > > > Cheers, > > Cédric > > > 1:(celluloid-io seems to have tests failing without the testsuite > throwing errors though) >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature