Debian Bug report logs - #789077
transition: ruby2.2

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: transition: ruby2.2

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:08:43 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

This transition will be used to track which packages need to be rebuilt
with Ruby 2.2 suport before we make it the default. Ruby 2.1 is still
supported, and only after 2.2 becomes the default we will start another
transition to phase 2.1 out.

Ben file:

title = "ruby2.2";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libruby2.1" | .depends ~ "libruby2.2";
is_good = .depends ~ "libruby2.2";
is_bad = ! .depends ~ "libruby2.2" ;

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers buildd-unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'buildd-unstable'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.0.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=pt_BR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=pt_BR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #10 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: transition: ruby2.2

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:02:24 +0100

Control: tag -1 moreinfo

On 2015-06-17 16:08, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> This transition will be used to track which packages need to be rebuilt
> with Ruby 2.2 suport before we make it the default. Ruby 2.1 is still
> supported, and only after 2.2 becomes the default we will start another
> transition to phase 2.1 out.

Please stage the transition in experimental first, and come back when 
it's clearer what needs to be done.

-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire                                      jmw@debian.org
Debian Developer                         http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

<directhex> i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from
            8->10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits
			layered on top of bonghits

Message #17 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: binNMUs for ruby2.2 transition, round 1

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:14:48 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Please binNMU the list of packages below in unstable. As changelog
entry, we can use

  Rebuild for ruby2.2 support

The list:

libguestfs
libselinux
libsemanage
mapserver
ohcount
qdbm
remctl
rrdtool
ruby-atomic
ruby-augeas
ruby-bson-ext
ruby-cairo
ruby-charlock-holmes
ruby-curb
ruby-dataobjects-postgres
ruby-debian
ruby-dep-selector
ruby-eb
ruby-escape-utils
ruby-exif
ruby-fcgi
ruby-ffi
ruby-ffi-yajl
ruby-filesystem
ruby-fusefs
ruby-gd
ruby-gherkin
ruby-globalhotkeys
ruby-god
ruby-gpgme
ruby-hitimes
ruby-json
ruby-ldap
ruby-libvirt
rubyluabridge
ruby-mecab
ruby-msgpack
ruby-mysql
ruby-narray
ruby-ncurses
ruby-nfc
ruby-nokogiri
ruby-odbc
ruby-oily-png
ruby-oj
ruby-ox
ruby-passenger
ruby-pcaprub
ruby-pg
ruby-posix-spawn
ruby-re2
ruby-rmagick
ruby-rugged
ruby-sdl
ruby-sequel-pg
ruby-shadow
ruby-sigar
ruby-sqlite3
ruby-taglib2
ruby-termios
ruby-uconv
ruby-unf-ext
ruby-unicode
ruby-version-sorter
ruby-xmlparser
ruby-zip
ruby-zoom
stfl
thin


-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #22 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org>

Cc: 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: transition: ruby2.2

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:26:17 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:02:24PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
> 
> On 2015-06-17 16:08, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> >This transition will be used to track which packages need to be rebuilt
> >with Ruby 2.2 suport before we make it the default. Ruby 2.1 is still
> >supported, and only after 2.2 becomes the default we will start another
> >transition to phase 2.1 out.
> 
> Please stage the transition in experimental first, and come back when it's
> clearer what needs to be done.

We already know what needs to be done, since the transitions from 1.9 to
2.0 and from 2.0 to 2.1 were done in a very similar way. We do the
transition in phases so that unstable is never broken:

- phase 0: the new ruby reaches unstable

- phase 1: ruby-defaults gets uploaded telling gem2deb to build for both
  the old and the new ruby versions.

- phase 2: packages get rebuilt/fixed with support for both the old ruby
  and the new ruby

  this is where we are now

  what needs to fixed is usually fixed in a way that it won't need to be
  fixed again in the next transition. In fact, the last transition was a
  lot smoother than the previous one.

- phase 3: new ruby becomes the default

- phase 4: ruby-defaults gets uploaded telling gem2deb to stop building
  for the old ruby

- phase 5: packages get rebuilt/fixed to drop support for the old ruby

- phase 6: old ruby gets removed

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #27 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: transition: ruby2.2

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:59:28 +0100

On 2015-06-17 17:26, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:02:24PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
>> 
>> On 2015-06-17 16:08, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>> >This transition will be used to track which packages need to be rebuilt
>> >with Ruby 2.2 suport before we make it the default. Ruby 2.1 is still
>> >supported, and only after 2.2 becomes the default we will start another
>> >transition to phase 2.1 out.
>> 
>> Please stage the transition in experimental first, and come back when 
>> it's
>> clearer what needs to be done.
> 
> We already know what needs to be done, since the transitions from 1.9 
> to
> 2.0 and from 2.0 to 2.1 were done in a very similar way. We do the
> transition in phases so that unstable is never broken:

Right, I didn't appreciate from your mail that's it is to be a 
two-pronged transition or that ruby2.2 is already in waiting in testing.

You'll tangle with the ongoing hiredis transition but we can sort that 
out later.

Scheduled first round of binNMUs.

-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire                                      jmw@debian.org
Debian Developer                         http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

<directhex> i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from
            8->10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits
			layered on top of bonghits

Message #32 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org>

Cc: 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: transition: ruby2.2

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:51:24 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:59:28PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> On 2015-06-17 17:26, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:02:24PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> >>Control: tag -1 moreinfo
> >>
> >>On 2015-06-17 16:08, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> >>>This transition will be used to track which packages need to be rebuilt
> >>>with Ruby 2.2 suport before we make it the default. Ruby 2.1 is still
> >>>supported, and only after 2.2 becomes the default we will start another
> >>>transition to phase 2.1 out.
> >>
> >>Please stage the transition in experimental first, and come back when
> >>it's
> >>clearer what needs to be done.
> >
> >We already know what needs to be done, since the transitions from 1.9 to
> >2.0 and from 2.0 to 2.1 were done in a very similar way. We do the
> >transition in phases so that unstable is never broken:
> 
> Right, I didn't appreciate from your mail that's it is to be a two-pronged
> transition or that ruby2.2 is already in waiting in testing.
> 
> You'll tangle with the ongoing hiredis transition but we can sort that out
> later.
> 
> Scheduled first round of binNMUs.

Thanks.

Looking at https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2.html the
Bad: criteria will not get us the results we need. It has to be

! .depends ~ "libruby2.2"

i.e. the packages that do *not* have Ruby 2.2 support, because at
this stage packages will not lose the libruby2.1 dependency yet.

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #37 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: transition: ruby2.2

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:44:16 +0200

Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2.html
Control: tags -1 = confirmed

On 17/06/15 20:51, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:59:28PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>> On 2015-06-17 17:26, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:02:24PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
>>>> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-06-17 16:08, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>>>> This transition will be used to track which packages need to be rebuilt
>>>>> with Ruby 2.2 suport before we make it the default. Ruby 2.1 is still
>>>>> supported, and only after 2.2 becomes the default we will start another
>>>>> transition to phase 2.1 out.
>>>>
>>>> Please stage the transition in experimental first, and come back when
>>>> it's
>>>> clearer what needs to be done.
>>>
>>> We already know what needs to be done, since the transitions from 1.9 to
>>> 2.0 and from 2.0 to 2.1 were done in a very similar way. We do the
>>> transition in phases so that unstable is never broken:
>>
>> Right, I didn't appreciate from your mail that's it is to be a two-pronged
>> transition or that ruby2.2 is already in waiting in testing.
>>
>> You'll tangle with the ongoing hiredis transition but we can sort that out
>> later.
>>
>> Scheduled first round of binNMUs.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Looking at https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2.html the
> Bad: criteria will not get us the results we need. It has to be
> 
> ! .depends ~ "libruby2.2"
> 
> i.e. the packages that do *not* have Ruby 2.2 support, because at
> this stage packages will not lose the libruby2.1 dependency yet.

Ack. I have fixed that and simplified the tracker.

Emilio

Message #46 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: binNMUs for ruby2.2 transition, round 1

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:52:52 +0200

On 17/06/15 18:14, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Please binNMU the list of packages below in unstable. As changelog
> entry, we can use
> 
>   Rebuild for ruby2.2 support
> 
> The list:

That happened, and only a couple of packages failed to build on one architecture:

https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2.html

Have you looked at those? Should we start the second round?

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #51 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: binNMUs for ruby2.2 transition, round 1

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 08:43:27 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:52:52PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 17/06/15 18:14, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Please binNMU the list of packages below in unstable. As changelog
> > entry, we can use
> > 
> >   Rebuild for ruby2.2 support
> > 
> > The list:
> 
> That happened, and only a couple of packages failed to build on one architecture:
> 
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2.html
> 
> Have you looked at those? Should we start the second round?

I will give you a list for the second round ASAP.

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #56 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: binNMUs for ruby2.2 transition, round 1

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:59:34 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:43:27AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:52:52PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > On 17/06/15 18:14, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > > Please binNMU the list of packages below in unstable. As changelog
> > > entry, we can use
> > > 
> > >   Rebuild for ruby2.2 support
> > > 
> > > The list:
> > 
> > That happened, and only a couple of packages failed to build on one architecture:
> > 
> > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2.html
> > 
> > Have you looked at those? Should we start the second round?
> 
> I will give you a list for the second round ASAP.

qdbm
remctl
rrdtool
ruby-fcgi
ruby-filesystem
ruby-god
ruby-narray
ruby-odbc
ruby-rmagick
ruby-sdl
ruby-taglib2
ruby-uconv
stfl
hyperestraier
libguestfs
mapserver
ruby-hdfeos5
ruby-mpi
ruby-netcdf
ruby-passenger
ruby-redcarpet
thin

All others either FTBFS, or just use the default ruby (which should
be fine), or don't use the supported versions reported by
ruby-defaults/gem2deb. They will need to be looked at individually.

I should be able to workaround a large part of the FTBFS by adding a
dependency to gem2deb, and after that I will be able to file FTBFS bugs.

Additionally, can you please adjust the ben file to remove false
positives on arch:all packages?

Affected: .architecture ~ /any/ & .depends ~ /libruby/


-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #61 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: binNMUs for ruby2.2 transition, round 1

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:41:36 +0200

On 22/06/15 15:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:43:27AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:52:52PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 17/06/15 18:14, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>>> Please binNMU the list of packages below in unstable. As changelog
>>>> entry, we can use
>>>>
>>>>   Rebuild for ruby2.2 support
>>>>
>>>> The list:
>>>
>>> That happened, and only a couple of packages failed to build on one architecture:
>>>
>>> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2.html
>>>
>>> Have you looked at those? Should we start the second round?
>>
>> I will give you a list for the second round ASAP.
> 
> qdbm
> remctl
> rrdtool
> ruby-fcgi
> ruby-filesystem
> ruby-god
> ruby-narray
> ruby-odbc
> ruby-rmagick
> ruby-sdl
> ruby-taglib2
> ruby-uconv
> stfl
> hyperestraier
> libguestfs
> mapserver
> ruby-hdfeos5
> ruby-mpi
> ruby-netcdf
> ruby-passenger
> ruby-redcarpet
> thin

Scheduled.

> All others either FTBFS, or just use the default ruby (which should
> be fine), or don't use the supported versions reported by
> ruby-defaults/gem2deb. They will need to be looked at individually.
> 
> I should be able to workaround a large part of the FTBFS by adding a
> dependency to gem2deb, and after that I will be able to file FTBFS bugs.
> 
> Additionally, can you please adjust the ben file to remove false
> positives on arch:all packages?
> 
> Affected: .architecture ~ /any/ & .depends ~ /libruby/

Why? Aren't the arch:all ones something that should be dealt with as well? Not
through binNMUs obviously, but the tracker lets you know when they have been
fixed or how many stuff is still using other ruby versions.

Actually from a closer look I see that those two depend on libruby, but not on
libruby2.X. So they shouldn't be tracked because of that. I've fixed the
is_affected regex to look for /libruby2/, which fixed that.

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #66 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: binNMUs for ruby2.2 transition, round 1

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:34:04 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 02:41:36PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 22/06/15 15:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
[...]
> > qdbm
> > remctl
> > rrdtool
> > ruby-fcgi
> > ruby-filesystem
> > ruby-god
> > ruby-narray
> > ruby-odbc
> > ruby-rmagick
> > ruby-sdl
> > ruby-taglib2
> > ruby-uconv
> > stfl
> > hyperestraier
> > libguestfs
> > mapserver
> > ruby-hdfeos5
> > ruby-mpi
> > ruby-netcdf
> > ruby-passenger
> > ruby-redcarpet
> > thin
> 
> Scheduled.

Thanks

> > All others either FTBFS, or just use the default ruby (which should
> > be fine), or don't use the supported versions reported by
> > ruby-defaults/gem2deb. They will need to be looked at individually.
> > 
> > I should be able to workaround a large part of the FTBFS by adding a
> > dependency to gem2deb, and after that I will be able to file FTBFS bugs.
> > 
> > Additionally, can you please adjust the ben file to remove false
> > positives on arch:all packages?
> > 
> > Affected: .architecture ~ /any/ & .depends ~ /libruby/
> 
> Why? Aren't the arch:all ones something that should be dealt with as well? Not
> through binNMUs obviously, but the tracker lets you know when they have been
> fixed or how many stuff is still using other ruby versions.
>
> Actually from a closer look I see that those two depend on libruby, but not on
> libruby2.X. So they shouldn't be tracked because of that. I've fixed the
> is_affected regex to look for /libruby2/, which fixed that.

Your solution is indeed better because it would catch any arch:all
packages that depend on specific versions (but shouldn't). Thanks again.

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #71 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Cc: 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: binNMUs for ruby2.2 transition, round 1

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:51:51 +0200

On 23/06/15 15:34, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 02:41:36PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 22/06/15 15:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> [...]
>>> qdbm
>>> remctl
>>> rrdtool
>>> ruby-fcgi
>>> ruby-filesystem
>>> ruby-god
>>> ruby-narray
>>> ruby-odbc
>>> ruby-rmagick
>>> ruby-sdl
>>> ruby-taglib2
>>> ruby-uconv
>>> stfl
>>> hyperestraier
>>> libguestfs
>>> mapserver
>>> ruby-hdfeos5
>>> ruby-mpi
>>> ruby-netcdf
>>> ruby-passenger
>>> ruby-redcarpet
>>> thin
>>
>> Scheduled.
> 
> Thanks

Looks like a few of these were also done in round 1. Please be careful there so
we don't waste buildd time.

Anyway, those are mostly done.

>>> All others either FTBFS, or just use the default ruby (which should
>>> be fine), or don't use the supported versions reported by
>>> ruby-defaults/gem2deb. They will need to be looked at individually.
>>>
>>> I should be able to workaround a large part of the FTBFS by adding a
>>> dependency to gem2deb, and after that I will be able to file FTBFS bugs.
>>>
>>> Additionally, can you please adjust the ben file to remove false
>>> positives on arch:all packages?
>>>
>>> Affected: .architecture ~ /any/ & .depends ~ /libruby/
>>
>> Why? Aren't the arch:all ones something that should be dealt with as well? Not
>> through binNMUs obviously, but the tracker lets you know when they have been
>> fixed or how many stuff is still using other ruby versions.
>>
>> Actually from a closer look I see that those two depend on libruby, but not on
>> libruby2.X. So they shouldn't be tracked because of that. I've fixed the
>> is_affected regex to look for /libruby2/, which fixed that.
> 
> Your solution is indeed better because it would catch any arch:all
> packages that depend on specific versions (but shouldn't). Thanks again.

I added another tweak to is_bad as it was reporting packages that had

Depends: [...], libruby2.1 (>= 2.1.0), libruby2.2 (>= 2.2.0~1), [...]

as bad. Those are now marked as good.

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #76 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: binNMUs for ruby2.2 transition, round 1

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:05:25 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:51:51PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 23/06/15 15:34, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 02:41:36PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >> On 22/06/15 15:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> qdbm
> >>> remctl
> >>> rrdtool
> >>> ruby-fcgi
> >>> ruby-filesystem
> >>> ruby-god
> >>> ruby-narray
> >>> ruby-odbc
> >>> ruby-rmagick
> >>> ruby-sdl
> >>> ruby-taglib2
> >>> ruby-uconv
> >>> stfl
> >>> hyperestraier
> >>> libguestfs
> >>> mapserver
> >>> ruby-hdfeos5
> >>> ruby-mpi
> >>> ruby-netcdf
> >>> ruby-passenger
> >>> ruby-redcarpet
> >>> thin
> >>
> >> Scheduled.
> > 
> > Thanks
> 
> Looks like a few of these were also done in round 1. Please be careful there so
> we don't waste buildd time.
> 
> Anyway, those are mostly done.

That's weird since I compiled that list starting from the packages
listed as bad in the transition page itself.

> >>> All others either FTBFS, or just use the default ruby (which should
> >>> be fine), or don't use the supported versions reported by
> >>> ruby-defaults/gem2deb. They will need to be looked at individually.
> >>>
> >>> I should be able to workaround a large part of the FTBFS by adding a
> >>> dependency to gem2deb, and after that I will be able to file FTBFS bugs.
> >>>
> >>> Additionally, can you please adjust the ben file to remove false
> >>> positives on arch:all packages?
> >>>
> >>> Affected: .architecture ~ /any/ & .depends ~ /libruby/
> >>
> >> Why? Aren't the arch:all ones something that should be dealt with as well? Not
> >> through binNMUs obviously, but the tracker lets you know when they have been
> >> fixed or how many stuff is still using other ruby versions.
> >>
> >> Actually from a closer look I see that those two depend on libruby, but not on
> >> libruby2.X. So they shouldn't be tracked because of that. I've fixed the
> >> is_affected regex to look for /libruby2/, which fixed that.
> > 
> > Your solution is indeed better because it would catch any arch:all
> > packages that depend on specific versions (but shouldn't). Thanks again.
> 
> I added another tweak to is_bad as it was reporting packages that had
> 
> Depends: [...], libruby2.1 (>= 2.1.0), libruby2.2 (>= 2.2.0~1), [...]
> 
> as bad. Those are now marked as good.

Thanks. I should have a next round soon.

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #81 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Cc: 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: binNMUs for ruby2.2 transition, round 1

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:39:09 +0200

On 23/06/15 23:05, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:51:51PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 23/06/15 15:34, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 02:41:36PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>> On 22/06/15 15:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> qdbm
>>>>> remctl
>>>>> rrdtool
>>>>> ruby-fcgi
>>>>> ruby-filesystem
>>>>> ruby-god
>>>>> ruby-narray
>>>>> ruby-odbc
>>>>> ruby-rmagick
>>>>> ruby-sdl
>>>>> ruby-taglib2
>>>>> ruby-uconv
>>>>> stfl
>>>>> hyperestraier
>>>>> libguestfs
>>>>> mapserver
>>>>> ruby-hdfeos5
>>>>> ruby-mpi
>>>>> ruby-netcdf
>>>>> ruby-passenger
>>>>> ruby-redcarpet
>>>>> thin
>>>>
>>>> Scheduled.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> Looks like a few of these were also done in round 1. Please be careful there so
>> we don't waste buildd time.
>>
>> Anyway, those are mostly done.
> 
> That's weird since I compiled that list starting from the packages
> listed as bad in the transition page itself.

A couple of packages hadn't been built on all architectures (or had failed to
build on one of them) so were marked as bad. Also the problem with the tracker
marking some packages as bad when they should have been good might have caused
you to ask for rebuilds. But no big deal.

>>>>> All others either FTBFS, or just use the default ruby (which should
>>>>> be fine), or don't use the supported versions reported by
>>>>> ruby-defaults/gem2deb. They will need to be looked at individually.
>>>>>
>>>>> I should be able to workaround a large part of the FTBFS by adding a
>>>>> dependency to gem2deb, and after that I will be able to file FTBFS bugs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, can you please adjust the ben file to remove false
>>>>> positives on arch:all packages?
>>>>>
>>>>> Affected: .architecture ~ /any/ & .depends ~ /libruby/
>>>>
>>>> Why? Aren't the arch:all ones something that should be dealt with as well? Not
>>>> through binNMUs obviously, but the tracker lets you know when they have been
>>>> fixed or how many stuff is still using other ruby versions.
>>>>
>>>> Actually from a closer look I see that those two depend on libruby, but not on
>>>> libruby2.X. So they shouldn't be tracked because of that. I've fixed the
>>>> is_affected regex to look for /libruby2/, which fixed that.
>>>
>>> Your solution is indeed better because it would catch any arch:all
>>> packages that depend on specific versions (but shouldn't). Thanks again.
>>
>> I added another tweak to is_bad as it was reporting packages that had
>>
>> Depends: [...], libruby2.1 (>= 2.1.0), libruby2.2 (>= 2.2.0~1), [...]
>>
>> as bad. Those are now marked as good.
> 
> Thanks. I should have a next round soon.

OK.

Emilio

Message #86 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: ruby2.2 transition: binNMUs round 3

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 10:00:30 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

These packages used to FTBFS, but will now build fine with the new
version of gem2deb in unstable. Please binNMU them:

ruby-fast-stemmer
ruby-blockenspiel
ruby-fast-xs
ruby-levenshtein
raspell
ruby-rdiscount
ruby-hiredis
ruby-rinku
ruby-fftw3
ruby-github-markdown
ruby-rjb
ruby-multibitnums
ruby-password
ruby-raindrops
ruby-rpatricia
ruby-gsl
ruby-kgio


-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #91 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: binNMUs round 3

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:53:44 +0200

On 25/06/15 15:00, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> These packages used to FTBFS, but will now build fine with the new
> version of gem2deb in unstable. Please binNMU them:
> 
> ruby-fast-stemmer
> ruby-blockenspiel
> ruby-fast-xs
> ruby-levenshtein
> raspell
> ruby-rdiscount
> ruby-hiredis
> ruby-rinku
> ruby-fftw3
> ruby-github-markdown
> ruby-rjb
> ruby-multibitnums
> ruby-password
> ruby-raindrops
> ruby-rpatricia
> ruby-gsl
> ruby-kgio

All scheduled.

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #96 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: transition: ruby2.2

Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 19:24:10 +0200

On 17/06/15 17:08, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> This transition will be used to track which packages need to be rebuilt
> with Ruby 2.2 suport before we make it the default. Ruby 2.1 is still
> supported, and only after 2.2 becomes the default we will start another
> transition to phase 2.1 out.

Any update on this transition?

Emilio

Message #101 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: transition: ruby2.2

Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:11:45 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

Please schedule binNMUs for these packages, which now have their 
dependencies fulfilled (and build fine in my tests):

ruby-eventmachine_1.0.7-1
ruby-hpricot_0.8.6-5
ruby-lapack_1.6-2
ruby-lapack-dbg_1.6-2
unicorn_4.8.3-1

I think after those we're left mostly with packages that only build
for the first ruby version they find, some broken "leaf-y" ruby
libs, plus ruby-yajl and ruby-redcloth which impact a larger chain.

  Christian

-- 
 ,''`.  Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C  D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03
  `-

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #106 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: transition: ruby2.2

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 10:56:00 +0200

On 08/07/15 14:11, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Please schedule binNMUs for these packages, which now have their 
> dependencies fulfilled (and build fine in my tests):
> 
> ruby-eventmachine_1.0.7-1
> ruby-hpricot_0.8.6-5
> ruby-lapack_1.6-2
> ruby-lapack-dbg_1.6-2
> unicorn_4.8.3-1

Scheduled. You listed ruby-lapack and ruby-lapack-dbg. I guess the latter was a
mistake.

> I think after those we're left mostly with packages that only build
> for the first ruby version they find, some broken "leaf-y" ruby
> libs, plus ruby-yajl and ruby-redcloth which impact a larger chain.

ruby-yajl and ruby-redcloth are marked as good in the tracker. What's the
problem with them?

I guess the next step is making ruby2.2 the default (probably in experimental
first and making sure things still build properly, particularly those that only
build for the default version).

Cheers,
Emilio

P.S.: try not to break threading

Message #111 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: transition: ruby2.2

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 11:13:19 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org> [150709 10:56]:
> On 08/07/15 14:11, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Please schedule binNMUs for these packages, which now have their 
> > dependencies fulfilled (and build fine in my tests):
> > 
> > ruby-eventmachine_1.0.7-1
> > ruby-hpricot_0.8.6-5
> > ruby-lapack_1.6-2
> > ruby-lapack-dbg_1.6-2
> > unicorn_4.8.3-1
> 
> Scheduled. You listed ruby-lapack and ruby-lapack-dbg. I guess the latter was a
> mistake.

Indeed, sorry.

> > I think after those we're left mostly with packages that only build
> > for the first ruby version they find, some broken "leaf-y" ruby
> > libs, plus ruby-yajl and ruby-redcloth which impact a larger chain.
> 
> ruby-yajl and ruby-redcloth are marked as good in the tracker. What's the
> problem with them?

Fellow team members have fixed them in the meantime, so they're no
longer a problem.

Please also schedule a binNMU for this package:

ruby-http-parser.rb_0.6.0-2

> I guess the next step is making ruby2.2 the default (probably in experimental
> first and making sure things still build properly, particularly those that only
> build for the default version).

Yup; Antonio has uploaded a new ruby-defaults to experimental
Yesterday evening.

> Cheers,
> Emilio

Thank you,
Christian

> P.S.: try not to break threading

-- 
 ,''`.  Hofstaedtler Christian <zeha@debian.org>
: :' :  Developer Debian 
`. `'   CFFA 7D1A D9E0 9C4C 806C  5C13 D392 9305 D6DB 2E03
  `-

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #116 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>

Cc: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: transition: ruby2.2

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 11:23:58 +0200

On 09/07/15 11:13, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org> [150709 10:56]:
>> On 08/07/15 14:11, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>>> I think after those we're left mostly with packages that only build
>>> for the first ruby version they find, some broken "leaf-y" ruby
>>> libs, plus ruby-yajl and ruby-redcloth which impact a larger chain.
>>
>> ruby-yajl and ruby-redcloth are marked as good in the tracker. What's the
>> problem with them?
> 
> Fellow team members have fixed them in the meantime, so they're no
> longer a problem.

Ah OK.

> Please also schedule a binNMU for this package:
> 
> ruby-http-parser.rb_0.6.0-2

Done.

>> I guess the next step is making ruby2.2 the default (probably in experimental
>> first and making sure things still build properly, particularly those that only
>> build for the default version).
> 
> Yup; Antonio has uploaded a new ruby-defaults to experimental
> Yesterday evening.

OK good.

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #121 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: transition: ruby2.2

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 11:24:05 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

In my previous mail I've requested a binNMU for ruby-http-parser.rb,
please disregard that.

Thanks,
-- 
 ,''`.  Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C  D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03
  `-

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #126 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: 789077@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-ruby@lists.debian.org

Subject: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:23:57 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello release team.

We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks
and didn't notice any problems worth postponing this any longer.

After that is done, the following packages will need to be binNMUed:

hyperestraier
libguestfs
mapserver
marisa
ngraph-gtk
notmuch
obexftp
player
qdbm
qtruby
raspell
redland-bindings
remctl
root-system
rrdtool
rubyluabridge
stfl
vim
xmms2

These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually:

korundum
kross-interpreters
subversion
treil
uwsgi
zeroc-ice
weechat

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.

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #131 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: James McCoy <jamessan@debian.org>

To: 789077@bugs.debian.org, debian-ruby@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 19:28:14 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:23:57PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Hello release team.
> 
> We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
    now? -^
> in unstable.
> […]
> These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually:
> 
> korundum
> kross-interpreters
> subversion

At least subversion is due to ruby2.2 not including or depending on
ruby-test-unit, even though upstream ruby's tarball does (#791925).

Cheers,
-- 
James
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <jamessan@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #136 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: 789077@bugs.debian.org, debian-ruby@lists.debian.org, Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:17:38 +0200

On 28/07/15 23:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Hello release team.
> 
> We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
> in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks
> and didn't notice any problems worth postponing this any longer.
> 
> After that is done, the following packages will need to be binNMUed:
> 
> hyperestraier
> libguestfs
> mapserver
> marisa
> ngraph-gtk
> notmuch
> obexftp
> player
> qdbm
> qtruby
> raspell
> redland-bindings
> remctl
> root-system
> rrdtool
> rubyluabridge
> stfl
> vim
> xmms2
> 
> These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually:
> 
> korundum
> kross-interpreters
> subversion
> treil
> uwsgi
> zeroc-ice
> weechat
> 
> 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

Message #141 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: James McCoy <jamessan@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org, debian-ruby@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:48:05 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 07:28:14PM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:23:57PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Hello release team.
> > 
> > We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
>     now? -^

yes

> > in unstable.
> > […]
> > These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually:
> > 
> > korundum
> > kross-interpreters
> > subversion
> 
> At least subversion is due to ruby2.2 not including or depending on
> ruby-test-unit, even though upstream ruby's tarball does (#791925).

yes, that is fixed now.

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #146 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: 789077@bugs.debian.org, debian-ruby@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 10:27:45 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:17:38PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 28/07/15 23:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Hello release team.
> > 
> > We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
> > in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks
> > and didn't notice any problems worth postponing this any longer.
> > 
> > After that is done, the following packages will need to be binNMUed:
> > 
> > hyperestraier
> > libguestfs
> > mapserver
> > marisa
> > ngraph-gtk
> > notmuch
> > obexftp
> > player
> > qdbm
> > qtruby
> > raspell
> > redland-bindings
> > remctl
> > root-system
> > rrdtool
> > rubyluabridge
> > stfl
> > vim
> > xmms2
> > 
> > These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually:
> > 
> > korundum
> > kross-interpreters
> > subversion
> > treil
> > uwsgi
> > zeroc-ice
> > weechat
> > 
> > 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?

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #151 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: 789077@bugs.debian.org, debian-ruby@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:18:39 +0200

On 19/09/15 15:27, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:17:38PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 28/07/15 23:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> Hello release team.
>>>
>>> We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
>>> in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks
>>> and didn't notice any problems worth postponing this any longer.
>>>
>>> After that is done, the following packages will need to be binNMUed:
>>>
>>> hyperestraier
>>> libguestfs
>>> mapserver
>>> marisa
>>> ngraph-gtk
>>> notmuch
>>> obexftp
>>> player
>>> qdbm
>>> qtruby
>>> raspell
>>> redland-bindings
>>> remctl
>>> root-system
>>> rrdtool
>>> rubyluabridge
>>> stfl
>>> vim
>>> xmms2
>>>
>>> These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually:
>>>
>>> korundum
>>> kross-interpreters
>>> subversion
>>> treil
>>> uwsgi
>>> zeroc-ice
>>> weechat
>>>
>>> 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?

Thanks,
Emilio

Message #156 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: 789077@bugs.debian.org, debian-ruby@lists.debian.org, Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:40:53 +0200

On 30/09/15 19:18, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 19/09/15 15:27, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:17:38PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 28/07/15 23:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>>> Hello release team.
>>>>
>>>> We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
>>>> in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks
>>>> and didn't notice any problems worth postponing this any longer.
>>>>
>>>> After that is done, the following packages will need to be binNMUed:
>>>>
>>>> hyperestraier
>>>> libguestfs
>>>> mapserver
>>>> marisa
>>>> ngraph-gtk
>>>> notmuch
>>>> obexftp
>>>> player
>>>> qdbm
>>>> qtruby
>>>> raspell
>>>> redland-bindings
>>>> remctl
>>>> root-system
>>>> rrdtool
>>>> rubyluabridge
>>>> stfl
>>>> vim
>>>> xmms2
>>>>
>>>> These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually:
>>>>
>>>> korundum
>>>> kross-interpreters
>>>> subversion
>>>> treil
>>>> uwsgi
>>>> zeroc-ice
>>>> weechat
>>>>
>>>> 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.

Emilio

Message #161 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: 789077@bugs.debian.org, debian-ruby@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:33:16 -0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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.

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #166 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: 789077@bugs.debian.org, debian-ruby@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:45:38 +0200

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

Message #171 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: 789077@bugs.debian.org, debian-ruby@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 16:08:58 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org> [151023 00:03]:
> Thanks, and no rush. Just wanted to make sure this didn't fall under the cracks.

Yeah, super sorry that this took so long.

Here are my results, rgd. the packages still listed on the ruby2.2
transition tracker (all on amd64):

Fail:
  graphviz_2.38.0-10 needs Config->RbConfig patch
  subversion_1.9.2-2 swig-ruby check failure
  treil_1.8-2.1 make variable expansion fails (ruby related)
  uwsgi_2.0.11.2-2 hardcoded ruby version number
  redland-bindings_1.0.17.1+dfsg-1.1 explicit ruby2.1 build-dep 
  zeroc-ice_3.5.1-6.1 needs patches for removed ruby macros
  ruby-pgplot_0.1.9-1 needs non-free packages, didn't try

Unrelated failures:
  root-system_5.34.19+dfsg-1.2 B-Depends unavail libpythia8-dev
  subtle_0.11.3224-xi-2.1 missing freetype headers

Succeed:
  ruby-bert_1.1.6-1_amd64 successful 
  ruby-defaults_2.1.5.1_amd64 successful 
  ruby-patron_0.4.20-1_amd64 successful 
  ruby-taglib2_0.1.5-2_amd64 successful 
  geos_3.5.0-1_amd64 successful 
  kross-interpreters_15.08.0-1_amd64 successful 
  marisa_0.2.4-8_amd64 successful 
  ngraph-gtk_6.06.13-5_amd64 successful 
  notmuch_0.20.2-2_amd64 successful 
  obexftp_0.23-5_amd64 successful 
  qtruby_4.14.3-1_amd64 successful 
  ruby-gsl_1.16.0.4+dfsg1-1_amd64 successful 
  rubyluabridge_0.8.0-1_amd64 successful 
  vim_7.4.826-1_amd64 successful 
  player_3.0.2+dfsg-4.2_amd64 successful 
 
Thanks,
-- 
 ,''`.  Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C  D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03
  `-

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #176 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>

Cc: 789077@bugs.debian.org, debian-ruby@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:25:22 +0100

On 25/10/15 16:08, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org> [151023 00:03]:
>> Thanks, and no rush. Just wanted to make sure this didn't fall under the cracks.
> 
> Yeah, super sorry that this took so long.
> 
> Here are my results, rgd. the packages still listed on the ruby2.2
> transition tracker (all on amd64):

Thanks for the update. Can you open bug reports (if they don't exist yet) and
make them block this one?

Thanks,
Emilio

Message #187 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>

To: 789077@bugs.debian.org, 789077-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 23:44:03 +0100

FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.

James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
#803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
yet).

zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
backport it as part of an NMU.

Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team.

-- 
 ,''`.  Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C  D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03
  `-

Message #195 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 10:21:08 +0100

On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
> 
> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
> yet).
> 
> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
> backport it as part of an NMU.
> 
> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team.

Thanks for the update.

You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once
subversion is fixed.

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #200 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:49:15 +0100

On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
>>
>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
>> yet).
>>
>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
>> backport it as part of an NMU.
>>
>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team.
> 
> Thanks for the update.
> 
> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once
> subversion is fixed.

You can go ahead with the default switch.

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #205 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>

To: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org, 789077-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:27:31 +0100

On 08.11.2015 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
>
> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
> yet).
>
> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
> backport it as part of an NMU.

zeroc-ice doesn't look well maintained.  I touched it in 2014 and 2015 using 
NMUs. So I would prefer if you would just NMU the new upstream.

Matthias

Message #215 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org, Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 19:57:05 +0100

On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
>>>
>>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
>>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
>>> yet).
>>>
>>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
>>> backport it as part of an NMU.
>>>
>>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team.
>>
>> Thanks for the update.
>>
>> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once
>> subversion is fixed.
> 
> You can go ahead with the default switch.

ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping
ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the packages
that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1?

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #220 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:08:09 -0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> >>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
> >>>
> >>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
> >>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
> >>> yet).
> >>>
> >>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
> >>> backport it as part of an NMU.
> >>>
> >>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the update.
> >>
> >> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once
> >> subversion is fixed.
> > 
> > You can go ahead with the default switch.
> 
> ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping
> ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the packages
> that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1?

Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change
the existing one?

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #225 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 17:10:41 -0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > > On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > >> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > >>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
> > >>>
> > >>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
> > >>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
> > >>> yet).
> > >>>
> > >>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
> > >>> backport it as part of an NMU.
> > >>>
> > >>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the update.
> > >>
> > >> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once
> > >> subversion is fixed.
> > > 
> > > You can go ahead with the default switch.
> > 
> > ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping
> > ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the packages
> > that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1?
> 
> Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change
> the existing one?

FTR: ruby2.1 has already been removed from the the list in the
ruby-defaults that just went into testing, so we can start binNMUing
when we have a list of packages.

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #230 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Cc: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 20:32:03 +0100

On 16/11/15 20:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>> On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>>> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>>>>>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
>>>>>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
>>>>>> yet).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
>>>>>> backport it as part of an NMU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once
>>>>> subversion is fixed.
>>>>
>>>> You can go ahead with the default switch.
>>>
>>> ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping
>>> ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the packages
>>> that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1?
>>
>> Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change
>> the existing one?
> 
> FTR: ruby2.1 has already been removed from the the list in the
> ruby-defaults that just went into testing, so we can start binNMUing
> when we have a list of packages.

I can do these:

emilio@tatooine:~$ grep-dctrl -s Source:Package -n -F Depends libruby2.1 --and
libruby2.2
/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-amd64_Packages
hyperestraier (1.4.13-13)
libguestfs (1:1.28.12-1)
mapserver
passenger
qdbm
raspell (1.3-1)
remctl
rrdtool
ruby-atomic (1.1.16-2)
ruby-augeas (1:0.5.0-3)
ruby-bcrypt
ruby-bdb
ruby-blockenspiel (0.4.5-1)
ruby-bluecloth
ruby-bson-ext (1.10.0-2)
ruby-byebug
ruby-cairo (1.12.9-1)
ruby-charlock-holmes (0.6.9.4.dfsg1-1)
ruby-curb (0.8.8-1)
ruby-dataobjects-mysql
ruby-dataobjects-postgres
ruby-dataobjects-sqlite3
ruby-debian (0.3.9)
ruby-debug-inspector
ruby-dep-selector (1.0.3-2)
ruby-eb (2.6-3)
ruby-escape-utils (1.0.1-3)
ruby-eventmachine (1.0.7-3)
ruby-exif (0.1.2-21)
ruby-fast-stemmer (1.0.2-1)
ruby-fast-xs (0.8.0-3)
ruby-fcgi (0.9.2.1-1)
ruby-ferret
ruby-ffi (1.9.6debian-2)
ruby-ffi-yajl (2.2.0-1)
ruby-fftw3
ruby-filesystem (0.5-5.1)
ruby-fusefs (0.7.0-4)
ruby-gd (0.8.0-7)
ruby-gherkin (2.12.2-3)
ruby-github-markdown (0.6.8-1)
ruby-gnome2
ruby-gnome2
ruby-god (0.13.6-1)
ruby-gpgme (2.0.5-1)
ruby-grib
ruby-gsl (1.16.0.4+dfsg1-1)
ruby-hdfeos5 (1.2-5)
ruby-hiredis
ruby-hitimes
ruby-hpricot (0.8.6-5)
ruby-http-parser.rb
ruby-json
ruby-kgio
ruby-kyotocabinet
ruby-lapack
ruby-ldap (0.9.16-1)
ruby-levenshtein (0.2.2-2)
ruby-libvirt (0.5.1-3)
ruby-libxml
ruby-mecab (0.99.6-2)
ruby-mpi (0.3.0-1)
ruby-msgpack
ruby-multibitnums (0.1.4-2)
ruby-multimap
ruby-mysql (2.9.1-1)
ruby-mysql2
ruby-narray
ruby-ncurses (1.4.8-2)
ruby-netcdf (0.7.1.1-5)
ruby-nfc (3.1.1-1)
ruby-nio4r
ruby-nokogiri (1.6.6.2+ds-2)
ruby-nokogumbo
ruby-odbc (0.99995-2)
ruby-oily-png (1.1.0-5)
ruby-oj
ruby-ox (2.1.1-2)
ruby-password (0.5.3-4)
ruby-patron
ruby-pcaprub
ruby-pg
ruby-posix-spawn (0.3.9-1)
ruby-raindrops
ruby-rdiscount
ruby-re2 (0.7.0-1)
ruby-redcarpet
ruby-redcloth
ruby-rinku (1.7.3-1)
ruby-rjb
ruby-rmagick
ruby-rpatricia (1.0.1-1)
ruby-rugged
ruby-sdl (2.1.3-1)
ruby-sequel-pg (1.6.10-1)
ruby-serialport
ruby-shadow
ruby-sigar
ruby-sqlite3
ruby-taglib2 (0.1.5-2)
ruby-termios (1.0.0-1)
ruby-timfel-krb5-auth
ruby-tioga
ruby-tokyocabinet
ruby-uconv
ruby-unf-ext (0.0.7.1-1)
ruby-unicode (0.4.4-2)
ruby-version-sorter (2.0.0+dfsg-2)
ruby-xmlparser (0.7.3-1)
ruby-yajl
ruby-zoom (0.4.1-6)
stfl (0.22-1.2)
thin
unicorn (4.8.3-1)
xmms2 (0.8+dfsg-14)

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #235 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Cc: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 20:34:56 +0100

On 16/11/15 20:08, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>>>>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
>>>>>
>>>>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
>>>>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
>>>>> yet).
>>>>>
>>>>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
>>>>> backport it as part of an NMU.
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>>
>>>> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once
>>>> subversion is fixed.
>>>
>>> You can go ahead with the default switch.
>>
>> ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping
>> ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the packages
>> that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1?
> 
> Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change
> the existing one?

I have updated the existing one, see

https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2.html

Emilio

Message #240 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

Cc: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:59:58 -0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 08:32:03PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 16/11/15 20:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >>> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >>>> On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >>>>> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> >>>>>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
> >>>>>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
> >>>>>> yet).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
> >>>>>> backport it as part of an NMU.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for the update.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once
> >>>>> subversion is fixed.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can go ahead with the default switch.
> >>>
> >>> ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping
> >>> ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the packages
> >>> that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1?
> >>
> >> Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change
> >> the existing one?
> > 
> > FTR: ruby2.1 has already been removed from the the list in the
> > ruby-defaults that just went into testing, so we can start binNMUing
> > when we have a list of packages.
> 
> I can do these:
> 
> emilio@tatooine:~$ grep-dctrl -s Source:Package -n -F Depends libruby2.1 --and
> libruby2.2
> /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-amd64_Packages
[...]

looks good to me

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #245 received at 789077@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Cc: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 789077@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:09:11 +0100

On 16/11/15 21:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 08:32:03PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 16/11/15 20:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>>>>>>>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
>>>>>>>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
>>>>>>>> yet).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
>>>>>>>> backport it as part of an NMU.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once
>>>>>>> subversion is fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can go ahead with the default switch.
>>>>>
>>>>> ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping
>>>>> ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the packages
>>>>> that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change
>>>> the existing one?
>>>
>>> FTR: ruby2.1 has already been removed from the the list in the
>>> ruby-defaults that just went into testing, so we can start binNMUing
>>> when we have a list of packages.
>>
>> I can do these:
>>
>> emilio@tatooine:~$ grep-dctrl -s Source:Package -n -F Depends libruby2.1 --and
>> libruby2.2
>> /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-amd64_Packages
> [...]
> 
> looks good to me

Scheduling that.

Emilio

Message #250 received at 789077-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Cc: Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>, 789077-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789077: ruby2.2 transition: about to switch the default in unstable

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:32:06 +0100

On 16/11/15 22:09, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 16/11/15 21:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 08:32:03PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 16/11/15 20:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
>>>>>>>>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
>>>>>>>>> yet).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
>>>>>>>>> backport it as part of an NMU.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once
>>>>>>>> subversion is fixed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can go ahead with the default switch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping
>>>>>> ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the packages
>>>>>> that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change
>>>>> the existing one?
>>>>
>>>> FTR: ruby2.1 has already been removed from the the list in the
>>>> ruby-defaults that just went into testing, so we can start binNMUing
>>>> when we have a list of packages.
>>>
>>> I can do these:
>>>
>>> emilio@tatooine:~$ grep-dctrl -s Source:Package -n -F Depends libruby2.1 --and
>>> libruby2.2
>>> /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-amd64_Packages
>> [...]
>>
>> looks good to me
> 
> Scheduling that.

And with some hints and a couple of removals, I was able to remove ruby2.1 from
testing.

Let's consider this done now!

Cheers,
Emilio

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.