What is broken about it? Has anyone estimated how much effort it would take to fix? Are we talking needing assembly language bindings or just some dumb SIGBUS error?
Patrick Baggett On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Gunnar Wolf <gw...@gwolf.org> wrote: > Michael Stapelberg dijo [Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:22:00AM +0100]: > > On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:20:07 +0100 > > Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Dear release team, at some point before the wheezy release, we need to > > > decide what to do with Ruby 1.9.X on ia64. It has been broken for > > > months, and hasn't seen any activity in Debian (#539141) or upstream > > > (http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/5246). > > > > > > I think that removing it (with all its rev-depends) makes more sense > > > than shipping a known-broken Ruby. > > > > To recap: ruby1.9.1 on ia64 is broken, neglected and lucas as one of > > its maintainers agrees to remove it on ia64. > > > > Dear release team: How do we move this forward? Should I follow > > http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals? > > Wow... I have never had access to a IA64 machine. And yes, we are > aware of this breakage for a long time. But... How many packages in > the archive depend on the default version of Ruby? > > We can argue that most Ruby packages are likely to be still usable > under Ruby 1.8. Sigh... I don't like the idea of dropping Ruby1.9.1 > altogether from an architecture, but in this light, I cannot provide > any alternatives. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ia64-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121206173741.gc28...@gwolf.org > >
