On Monday, July 09, 2012 11:00:12 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
...
> OK. Thanks. I can file the RM bug for that one.
...
For completeness, based on Russ Albrey's advice, that was a one line fix, so
I'm just going to fix the FTBFS and I'll let someone who can better explain why
it should be removed
On Monday, July 09, 2012 08:08:37 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
> > OK. Thanks. I can file the RM bug for that one.
> >
> > In general though should these be forced to build with ruby 1.8 (since
> > they generally have ruby1.8 in the binary name or should they be coerced
> >
Scott Kitterman writes:
> OK. Thanks. I can file the RM bug for that one.
> In general though should these be forced to build with ruby 1.8 (since
> they generally have ruby1.8 in the binary name or should they be coerced
> into producing a package that works with ruby1.9, but is called ruby1.
; > new
> > Ruby package policy and sent through New? Should they be removed?
>
> In general, I think untransitioned Ruby packages should be "tolerated"
> for Wheezy, but not for Wheezy+1. That is, if a package that was not
> transitioned and it's still worthy
> weren't in freeze, these sorts of things would be easy enough to fix, but
> since
> we are ...
>
> What's the plan for packages like this? Should they be updated for the new
> Ruby package policy and sent through New? Should they be removed?
In general, I th
It looks like there are more than a few Ruby packages that aren't update for
the new packaging scheme and still expect Ruby 1.8 as the default.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=676092 is an example. If we
weren't in freeze, these sorts of things would be easy enough to fix, but
6 matches
Mail list logo
