On 16/11/15 21:59, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 08:32:03PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 16/11/15 20:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monf
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 08:32:03PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 16/11/15 20:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >>> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Poz
On 16/11/15 20:08, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> FTR, we're now do
On 16/11/15 20:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 05:08:09PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > > On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > >> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wr
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> >>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
>
On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
>>>
>>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
>>> #803589,
On 08.11.2015 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
#803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
yet).
zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is
On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
>>
>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no f
On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
>
> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
> yet).
>
> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the
FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice.
James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in
#803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix
yet).
zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to
backport it as part of an NMU.
H
On 25/10/15 16:08, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [151023 00:03]:
>> Thanks, and no rush. Just wanted to make sure this didn't fall under the
>> cracks.
>
> Yeah, super sorry that this took so long.
>
> Here are my results, rgd. the packages still listed on the ruby2.2
* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [151023 00:03]:
> Thanks, and no rush. Just wanted to make sure this didn't fall under the
> cracks.
Yeah, super sorry that this took so long.
Here are my results, rgd. the packages still listed on the ruby2.2
transition tracker (all on amd64):
Fail:
graphviz_2.38.0-
On 22/10/15 22:33, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:40:53PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> the remaining packages are ruby libraries who are either not ported or
>> have build problems, and it is OK to have them removed from testing for
>> now.
>>
>>
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:40:53PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> the remaining packages are ruby libraries who are either not ported or
> have build problems, and it is OK to have them removed from testing for
> now.
>
> Please let me know if it's OK to go forward
On 30/09/15 19:18, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 19/09/15 15:27, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:17:38PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 28/07/15 23:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
Hello release team.
We are not at a point where it makes sense to sw
On 19/09/15 15:27, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:17:38PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 28/07/15 23:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>>> Hello release team.
>>>
>>> We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
>>> in unstable. I have been runni
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:17:38PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 28/07/15 23:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Hello release team.
> >
> > We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
> > in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks
> >
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 07:28:14PM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:23:57PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Hello release team.
> >
> > We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
> now? -^
yes
> > in unstable.
> > […]
> > These packages FTB
On 28/07/15 23:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Hello release team.
>
> We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
> in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks
> and didn't notice any problems worth postponing this any longer.
>
> After that is
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:23:57PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Hello release team.
>
> We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
now? -^
> in unstable.
> […]
> These packages FTBFS and we will need to look at them individually:
>
> korundum
> kross-interpreter
Hello release team.
We are not at a point where it makes sense to switch the default ruby
in unstable. I have been running it on my work machine for a few weeks
and didn't notice any problems worth postponing this any longer.
After that is done, the following packages will need to be binNMUed:
h
22 matches
Mail list logo
