On 16/09/10 at 13:26 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Mon, September 13, 2010 14:42, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Mon, September 13, 2010 14:12, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >> On 13/09/10 at 13:19 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > >>> On Sun, September 12, 2010 18:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > libgems-ruby has been unblocked but can't migrate until ruby1.9.1 does; > which brings us back to... > > >>> > Then, ruby1.9.1 1.9.2.0-1. > >>> > >>> Already unblocked by Luk as part of the "security fixes unblock" set, > >>> but aged to 20 days. > >> > >> I don't understand the reason for that. I think that we agree that this > >> version is better than the previous one. Why do you prefer to reduce the > >> opportunity for testing by not letting it migrate now? > > > > I assume that was "plural you". :) > > > > From <[email protected]>: > > > > /============================= > > | > unblock ruby1.9.1/1.9.2.0-1 > > | > > | unblocked and aged to 20 days due to massive changes > > \============================= > > > > From a quick look at the diff, much of the changes appear to be > > auto-generated stuff in enc/trans/ and ext/ripper; are either/both of > > those used in the packages?
I assume they are, though I haven't analyzed the upstream build process to confirm that. The huge diff to those files is also contained in the upstream tarball. I don't think that size(change) is correlated with risk(change), so I don't really see the point of this discussion. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
