On Mon, September 13, 2010 14:12, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 13/09/10 at 13:19 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> On Sun, September 12, 2010 18:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> > The rubygems1.9.1 package used to be built from the libgems-ruby >> source >> > package. But Ruby 1.9.2 broke it, so we decided to switch to using >> Ruby >> > 1.9.2's rubygems for 1.9.X. >> > That requires dropping the 1.9 package from libgems-ruby, and making >> > changes to the ruby1.9.1 package to add the rubygems files to the >> > ruby1.9.1 package. (full discussion in #588125) >> > Additionally, a common complaint from rubygems users was addressed, by >> > allowing a workaround to do "gem update --system". (Done in both >> > packages). >> >> Why was this uploaded with an urgency of high? > > Because I have little doubt that the package is of better quality than > the one currently in testing, and I'd like to maximize testing of the > package by having it migrate ASAP.
Testing in unstable is also useful; mentioning that in the changelog would have been helpful, at least imho. >> One of the changes in debian/rules isn't mentioned in the changelog: >> >> -include /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make >> +include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/patchsys-quilt.mk > > Should I upload a fix? If there's a good reason the change was made, that's fine. I wasn't able to find an explanation in the changelog, so I queried it. >> > Then, ruby1.9.1 1.9.2.0-1. >> >> Already unblocked by Luk as part of the "security fixes unblock" set, >> but >> aged to 20 days. > > I don't understand the reason for that. I think that we agree that this > version is better than the previous one. Why do you prefer to reduce the > opportunity for testing by not letting it migrate now? I assume that was "plural you". :) >From <4c8dbe97.60...@debian.org>: /============================= | > unblock ruby1.9.1/1.9.2.0-1 | | unblocked and aged to 20 days due to massive changes \============================= >From a quick look at the diff, much of the changes appear to be auto-generated stuff in enc/trans/ and ext/ripper; are either/both of those used in the packages? 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/20edc27bdb2a6304f700a6467aeaa9b3.squir...@adsl.funky-badger.org
