On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 14:11:26 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > At this point, I'm confident that we can reach a (at least partially) > working Ruby on kfreebsd, sparc and armel at some point. I'm less > confident about ia64. > > Question: what should we do in the meantime? Options are: > (1) keep 1.9.3~rc1-1 in unstable until all the issues are fixed. > (2) build it with nocheck on ia64, sparc, kfreebsd, so that it can > migrate. > (3) disable test suite on ia64, sparc, kfreebsd until issues are fixed, > so that it can migrate. > (4) remove ruby1.9.1 binary packages on ia64, sparc, kfreebsd for now > (not really an option due to the large number of reverse dependencies). > > The version in testing is also affected by most of those issues, and was > uploaded by porters after a nocheck build on some architectures. > > My preference is 3,2,4,1 but I wanted to check with you before going > forward. > I don't think knowingly shipping a broken package is ok, which means 1 and 4 have my preference. I'm assuming the testsuite failures really mean ruby is broken on those archs; if the failures were for fringe features then my answer would probably be different. I'm also assuming the current version in testing works better; if not then there's no point keeping the newer one out because of this.
Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111103202748.ge3...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
