On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:19:51PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 28/02/16 16:26, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:27:09PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> On 26/02/16 00:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > >>> Some of the failures above have already been fixed. Please binNMU the > >>> following packages: > >> > >> Scheduled. > > > > Thanks. All of the builds seem to have finished, but for some reason the > > transtion page still lists several of the packages in an "unknown" > > state, even though the rebuilt packages are already in the archive for a > > while. Any idea why is that? > > Those "?!" are supposed to mean both is_good and is_bad match. Taking ruby-god > for example: > > The "god" package has: > > Depends: ruby-god > > That matches is_bad > > The "ruby-god" package has: > > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.4), libgmp10, libruby2.2 (>= 2.2.0~1) | libruby2.3 (>= > 2.3.0~preview2), ruby (>= 1:2.2) | ruby (>= 1:2.3~0) > > That matches is_good. > > Hence both is_good and is_bad match.
ah right, that makes sense. > This could be solved in this tracker by changing is_bad to: > > is_bad = .depends ~ /ruby2.2/ & ! .depends ~ /ruby2.3/; > > I've done that, the tracker looks better now. thanks, I have documented in the "ruby transition howto"¹ the correct ben parameters to do it right from the start next time. :) ¹ https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/InterpreterTransitions > > The next round of binNMUs is: [...] > > Scheduled. cool, I will keep an eye there. -- Antonio Terceiro <terce...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature