On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 08:51 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Adam D. Barratt escreveu isso aí: > > Looking through the BTS, it looks like both #679606 (in > > ruby-hpricot) and #679847 (in ruby-xs-fast) only affect unstable > > currently; is that correct? > > Yes, that is correct. However, the situation is a little more > complicated. [...] > If we can't get the fixed ruby-fast-xs in wheezy, then the existing > version of ruby-hpricot in wheezy will be fine, but we won't have > chef-expander, which is an important piece in large-scale Debian > deployments with chef.
Thanks for the explanation. If it's such an important part though, it's slightly surprising that there were no uploads to Debian (not even to experimental) until the day before the freeze. :-( > This is why I am requesting this exception to be able to have > ruby-fast-xs, the fixed ruby-hpricot and chef-expander in Wheezy. It's not just those three packages, fwiw. chef-expander then ends up depending on a chain of a further six NEW packages (for a total of eight NEW sources, most uploaded within the couple of days before the freeze). Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1341582545.11653.7.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
