On 25/03/16 18:02, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [160322 10:39]:
>> rrdtool and ruby-tokyocabinet failed to build (as expected given their RC
>> bugs). ruby-mpi failed on mips*, can you look at that and open a bug?
>>
>> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.
* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [160322 10:39]:
> rrdtool and ruby-tokyocabinet failed to build (as expected given their RC
> bugs). ruby-mpi failed on mips*, can you look at that and open a bug?
>
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2-rm.html
ruby-tokyocabinet and rrdtool apparently go
Control: affects 818909 src:ruby-mpi
On 22/03/16 10:22, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 22/03/16 00:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 21/03/16 19:20, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
Hello,
I think we're done with the ruby2.3 transition now (apart from
libguestfs/mips).
It'd be good if we c
On 22/03/16 00:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 21/03/16 19:20, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
Hello,
I think we're done with the ruby2.3 transition now (apart from
libguestfs/mips).
It'd be good if we could do the followup ruby2.2-rm transition
soonish. What does -release think about that?
On 21/03/16 19:20, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
Hello,
I think we're done with the ruby2.3 transition now (apart from
libguestfs/mips).
It'd be good if we could do the followup ruby2.2-rm transition
soonish. What does -release think about that?
Sure. I have added a tracker and scheduled the
Hello,
I think we're done with the ruby2.3 transition now (apart from
libguestfs/mips).
It'd be good if we could do the followup ruby2.2-rm transition
soonish. What does -release think about that?
Thanks,
--
,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C
Looks like we missed xapian-bindings. I've given it a quick test
rebuild on amd64, and it builds correctly for 2.3.
Not sure how this works, but ruby-xapian manages to not depend on
any librubyX.Y package!?
Thank you,
--
,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' 7D1A CFFA
Just so everybody has the current state:
- weechat #816312 has a patch, could NMU if nothing happens in the
next few days
- uwsgi #816315 sitting in binNEW
- subversion - just sent bugmail
- libguestfs #816610 / qemu #815409
- ruby-pgplot is in contrib, can't remember what we usually did,
I'll
On 04/03/16 19:01, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> - ruby-pgplot is in contrib, can't remember what we usually did,
> I'll ping the maintainer.
That build-depends on packages from non-free, so you need a manual upload with
binaries for all architectures where the package is currently built (so a
On 03/03/16 04:52, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 05:10:54PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 02/03/16 13:25, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>>> Emilio,
>>>
>>> I think we're quite close to be able to drop 2.2 - it's already in
>>> experimental, we're quite confident it
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 05:10:54PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 02/03/16 13:25, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > Emilio,
> >
> > I think we're quite close to be able to drop 2.2 - it's already in
> > experimental, we're quite confident it works, etc.
> >
> > Right now we know that u
On 02/03/16 13:25, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> Emilio,
>
> I think we're quite close to be able to drop 2.2 - it's already in
> experimental, we're quite confident it works, etc.
>
> Right now we know that uwsgi and weechat will need manual fixing and
> there are open bugs against them (#8163
* Christian Hofstaedtler [160302 13:25]:
> When do you think it would be ok for us to drop 2.2? We'll need
> another round of binNMUs for all the packages listed on the tracker.
> (We're running another test rebuild of those right now.)
>From our test rebuild, those packages failed:
Packages we
Emilio,
I think we're quite close to be able to drop 2.2 - it's already in
experimental, we're quite confident it works, etc.
Right now we know that uwsgi and weechat will need manual fixing and
there are open bugs against them (#816315, #816312).
When do you think it would be ok for us to drop
On 01/03/16 12:48, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:48:12PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 29/02/16 15:50, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>>> Emilio,
>>>
>>> * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [160224 19:03]:
>>>
> ruby-zoom
>>>
>>> Could you try a g-b on mipsel for this?
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:48:12PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 29/02/16 15:50, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > Emilio,
> >
> > * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [160224 19:03]:
> >
> >>> ruby-zoom
> >
> > Could you try a g-b on mipsel for this?
>
> Done.
Thanks; can you also please bin
On 29/02/16 15:50, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> Emilio,
>
> * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [160224 19:03]:
>
>>> ruby-zoom
>
> Could you try a g-b on mipsel for this?
Done.
Emilio
On 29/02/16 15:07, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please binNMU the following packages:
>
> unicorn
> ruby-oj
> passenger
Scheduled.
Emilio
Emilio,
* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [160224 19:03]:
> > ruby-zoom
Could you try a g-b on mipsel for this?
Thanks,
Christian
--
,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03
`-
Hi,
Please binNMU the following packages:
unicorn
ruby-oj
passenger
I will now test the switch to ruby2.3 as default in experimental, and
test rebuilding all the missing packages, which are supposed to only
link against the default Ruby.
--
Antonio Terceiro
signature.asc
Description: PGP si
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:19:51PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> 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
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.
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
On 26/02/16 00:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Some of the failures above have already been fixed. Please binNMU the
> following packages:
Scheduled.
Cheers,
Emilio
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 06:44:52PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>
> On 24/02/16 11:38, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
[...]
> > I would like to add support for building for ruby2.3 in unstable. That
> > means uploading the version of ruby-defaults in experimental
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 24/02/16 11:38, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:56:27PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 30/01/16 19:18, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>> Severity: normal
>>> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
>>> Us
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:56:27PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 30/01/16 19:18, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We want to ship ruby2.3 in stretc
On 30/01/16 19:18, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
>
> Hi,
>
> We want to ship ruby2.3 in stretch, so we must start the transition now.
> The Ruby transitions are done in phases, as desc
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 04:18:16PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> I am filing this bug now to keep this transition under the radar of
> both the Release and Ruby teams.
Of course I meant "on the radar", not under. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi,
We want to ship ruby2.3 in stretch, so we must start the transition now.
The Ruby transitions are done in phases, as described in
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/InterpreterTrans
30 matches
Mail list logo
