On 23/06/15 23:05, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:51:51PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 23/06/15 15:34, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 02:41:36PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>>> On 22/06/15 15:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> qdbm >>>>> remctl >>>>> rrdtool >>>>> ruby-fcgi >>>>> ruby-filesystem >>>>> ruby-god >>>>> ruby-narray >>>>> ruby-odbc >>>>> ruby-rmagick >>>>> ruby-sdl >>>>> ruby-taglib2 >>>>> ruby-uconv >>>>> stfl >>>>> hyperestraier >>>>> libguestfs >>>>> mapserver >>>>> ruby-hdfeos5 >>>>> ruby-mpi >>>>> ruby-netcdf >>>>> ruby-passenger >>>>> ruby-redcarpet >>>>> thin >>>> >>>> Scheduled. >>> >>> Thanks >> >> Looks like a few of these were also done in round 1. Please be careful there >> so >> we don't waste buildd time. >> >> Anyway, those are mostly done. > > That's weird since I compiled that list starting from the packages > listed as bad in the transition page itself.
A couple of packages hadn't been built on all architectures (or had failed to build on one of them) so were marked as bad. Also the problem with the tracker marking some packages as bad when they should have been good might have caused you to ask for rebuilds. But no big deal. >>>>> All others either FTBFS, or just use the default ruby (which should >>>>> be fine), or don't use the supported versions reported by >>>>> ruby-defaults/gem2deb. They will need to be looked at individually. >>>>> >>>>> I should be able to workaround a large part of the FTBFS by adding a >>>>> dependency to gem2deb, and after that I will be able to file FTBFS bugs. >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, can you please adjust the ben file to remove false >>>>> positives on arch:all packages? >>>>> >>>>> Affected: .architecture ~ /any/ & .depends ~ /libruby/ >>>> >>>> Why? Aren't the arch:all ones something that should be dealt with as well? >>>> Not >>>> through binNMUs obviously, but the tracker lets you know when they have >>>> been >>>> fixed or how many stuff is still using other ruby versions. >>>> >>>> Actually from a closer look I see that those two depend on libruby, but >>>> not on >>>> libruby2.X. So they shouldn't be tracked because of that. I've fixed the >>>> is_affected regex to look for /libruby2/, which fixed that. >>> >>> Your solution is indeed better because it would catch any arch:all >>> packages that depend on specific versions (but shouldn't). Thanks again. >> >> I added another tweak to is_bad as it was reporting packages that had >> >> Depends: [...], libruby2.1 (>= 2.1.0), libruby2.2 (>= 2.2.0~1), [...] >> >> as bad. Those are now marked as good. > > Thanks. I should have a next round soon. OK. Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/558a96dd.9050...@debian.org
