On Monday, July 09, 2012 11:00:12 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
...
> OK. Thanks. I can file the RM bug for that one.
...
For completeness, based on Russ Albrey's advice, that was a one line fix, so
I'm just going to fix the FTBFS and I'll let someone who can better explain why
it should be removed
On Monday, July 09, 2012 08:08:37 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
> > OK. Thanks. I can file the RM bug for that one.
> >
> > In general though should these be forced to build with ruby 1.8 (since
> > they generally have ruby1.8 in the binary name or should they be coerced
> >
Scott Kitterman writes:
> OK. Thanks. I can file the RM bug for that one.
> In general though should these be forced to build with ruby 1.8 (since
> they generally have ruby1.8 in the binary name or should they be coerced
> into producing a package that works with ruby1.9, but is called ruby1.
On Monday, July 09, 2012 11:16:35 PM Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Hello Scott,
>
> Scott Kitterman escreveu isso aí:
> > It looks like there are more than a few Ruby packages that aren't update
> > for the new packaging scheme and still expect Ruby 1.8 as the default.
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-b
Hello Scott,
Scott Kitterman escreveu isso aí:
> It looks like there are more than a few Ruby packages that aren't update for
> the new packaging scheme and still expect Ruby 1.8 as the default.
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=676092 is an example. If we
> weren't in freeze
5 matches
Mail list logo
