On 03/11/11 at 21:27 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > 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.
Given I hadn't got a reply, I implemented (3) and uploaded 1.9.3.0-1 to unstable. I haven't checked very closely, but it's very unlikely that those problems are regressions, so keeping the testing version isn't a solution. Lucas -- 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/20111103205440.ga10...@xanadu.blop.info
