Quoting Antonio Terceiro (2025-01-25 13:08:09) > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 04:09:47PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (2025-01-23 13:30:07) > > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 06:29:09 +0100 "Alexandre Rossi" <n...@zincube.net> > > > wrote: > > > > Control: block -1 by 1079857 > > > > > We are about to switch the default ruby version to 3.3 in unstable > > > > > (ruby-defaults/1:3.3~0 is in experimental already for testing), and > > > > > src:uwsgi fails to build with it: > > > > > > > > > > https://ruby-builds.debian.net/ruby3.3/21/uwsgi/uwsgi_2.0.28-1+rebuild1737418237_amd64-2025-01-21T00:10:39Z.build > > > > > > > > > > The fix is straightforward and is attached to this bug. > > > > > > > > This is not the fix that should go in. > > > > > > > > We have a packaging overhaul in progress that will make this easier, > > > > just needing binNMUs. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately src:uwsgi-plugin-ruby is still in the NEW queue. > > > The overhaul doesn't preclude fixing this with the attached patch. If > > > doing > > > that, please also change the java build for openjdk-21, see #1092756. > > > > > > And once the plugin split in NEW goes through, then these packages from > > > src:uwsgi can be dropped. But in the meantime, src:uwsgi needs to be > > > updated or > > > it will be removed from testing for the upcoming ruby3.3 transition. > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, but no. > > > > The binary package uwsgi-plugin-rack-ruby3.1 covers Ruby 3.1, not Ruby > > 3.3, just as the binary package uwsgi-plugin-ring-openjdk-17 covers > > OpenJDK 17, not 21. > > > > Yes, we could ignore renaming binary packages only to avoid a visit to > > NEW, but that is not heplful for our users. > > > > What we consider helpful is to plan ahead, which is what Alexandre did > > in introducing the new packages (with unversioned binary package names > > for future sake) more than 4 months ago. Those packages that are > > virtually empty, so ought to require as minimal as possible burden on > > the ftpmasters. It is a mystery why they have required so much time to > > process. > > uwsgi has been a PITA for the Ruby maintainers. Every time we do a > transition, we need source changes. > > With this new split packages design, will it be possible to just binNMU > src:uwsgi-plugin-ruby during Ruby transitions?
Yes, that is the one and only reason for the package split. > BTW, now that ruby3.3 has been made the default in unstable, this is > effectively blocking the Ruby transition. Yes, we are aware of that. Thanks anyway for mentioning it. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
