Hi, > > > > The fix is straightforward and is attached to this bug. > > > > > > This is not the fix that should go in. > > > > > > We have a packaging overhaul in progress that will make this easier, > > > just needing binNMUs. > > > > > > Unfortunately src:uwsgi-plugin-ruby is still in the NEW queue. > > The overhaul doesn't preclude fixing this with the attached patch. If doing > > that, please also change the java build for openjdk-21, see #1092756. > > > > And once the plugin split in NEW goes through, then these packages from > > src:uwsgi can be dropped. But in the meantime, src:uwsgi needs to be > > updated or > > it will be removed from testing for the upcoming ruby3.3 transition. > > Thanks for the suggestion, but no. > > The binary package uwsgi-plugin-rack-ruby3.1 covers Ruby 3.1, not Ruby > 3.3, just as the binary package uwsgi-plugin-ring-openjdk-17 covers > OpenJDK 17, not 21. > > Yes, we could ignore renaming binary packages only to avoid a visit to > NEW, but that is not heplful for our users. > > What we consider helpful is to plan ahead, which is what Alexandre did > in introducing the new packages (with unversioned binary package names > for future sake) more than 4 months ago. Those packages that are > virtually empty, so ought to require as minimal as possible burden on > the ftpmasters. It is a mystery why they have required so much time to > process.
Also, the suggested fix does not build. So this is more complicated that this and this is why an overhaul of the packaging was started. Thanks, Alex
