On 22/10/15 22:33, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:40:53PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>>>>> the remaining packages are ruby libraries who are either not ported or >>>>>> have build problems, and it is OK to have them removed from testing for >>>>>> now. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let me know if it's OK to go forward with this, i.e. uploading >>>>>> ruby-defaults to unstable so that ruby2.2 becomes the default ruby. >>>>> >>>>> Might be best to wait until after the libstdc++ transition. >>>>> >>>>> Emilio >>>> >>>> Would it be OK for us to go ahead with this now that the worst part of >>>> of libstdc++ is done? >>> >>> Can you give an update on how many packages would FTBFS ? Are there bugs, >>> patches, or anything for those? >> >> Ping? It'd be good to get this finished eventually. > > Hi, sorry for not getting back to you yet. I will work on this and will > give you a go/no-go at the worst case during the weekend. > > Thanks for getting in touch again.
Thanks, and no rush. Just wanted to make sure this didn't fall under the cracks. Cheers, Emilio
