Re: RFC: pry 0.13.0 upload to experimental?

[Pirate Praveen <praveen@onenetbeyond.org>]

On 2020, ഏപ്രിൽ 2 12:43:32 PM IST, Youhei SASAKI <uwabami@gfd-dennou.org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 15:24:11 +0900,
>Pirate Praveen <praveen@onenetbeyond.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020, ഏപ്രിൽ 2 6:46:51 AM IST, Youhei SASAKI
><uwabami@gfd-dennou.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >I'll upload pry 0.13.0 into unstable.
>> >Thanks for your commit.
>>
>> Did you also fix the two broken packages mentioned by Daniel ?
>
>I think no need to be special care.

All these should be uploaded at the same time.

>- ruby-gurad: Fixed upstream
>  https://github.com/guard/guard/issues/953
>  and already released new upstream v2.16.2. Need upgrade usuall way.
>
>- ruby-pry-byebug:
>  As I checked, ruby-pry-byebug v3.9.0 seems fine with pry 0.13.0.
>  Current ruby-pry-byebug in unstable is bit old (v3.7.0), Need upgarde
>  usuall way. But tihs package is under different team umbrella
>  (Freexian Packaging Team).
>
>Best,
>Youhei
>
>> >On April 2, 2020 9:48:52 AM Daniel Leidert <dleidert@debian.org>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi there,
>> >>
>> >> pry currently fails to build in unstable because
>ruby-method-source
>> >was updated
>> >> recently to version 1.0. pry 0.13.0 supports this version and
>builds
>> >fine now.
>> >> However it breaks ruby-guard (<< 2.16.2) and ruby-pry-byebug (<<
>> >3.9.0). The
>> >> other reverse dependencies build and/or test fine. The mentioned
>> >versions have
>> >> been released with support for pry 0.13 and could therefor be
>> >uploaded. However
>> >> I have no idea if they could break more things. So should pry 0.13
>go
>> >to
>> >> experimental now? Or shall we dicuss this on Friday?
>> >>
>> >> Regards, Daniel
>
>--
>Youhei SASAKI <uwabami@gfd-dennou.org>
>              <uwabami@debian.or.jp>
>GPG fingerprint:
>  4096/RSA: 66A4 EA70 4FE2 4055 8D6A C2E6 9394 F354 891D 7E07

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.