Hi James, On 23-04-2020 13:38, James McCoy wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:13:15AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: >> It seems the ruby2.5 removal transition [1] is stalled by subversion >> [2]. Can the fix for 954866 please be uploaded to unstable such that >> subversion can migrate and we can finish the removal of ruby2.5 in testing? > > I'd rather not upload an RC. The ETA for the actual release is May > 27th. > > There don't seem to be any users of ruby-svn in the archive, so maybe > it's best to remove that from testing in the interim?
Unless I'm mistaken, we can't remove individual binaries from testing. So you would have to build a new package in unstable without ruby-svn. On top of that, I believe your package FTBFS in bullseye for the same reason it doesn't want to migrate. bullseye doesn't have swig3.0, it only has swig4.0. You explicitly added the swig3.0 B-D [1] because with swig4.0 it doesn't work. However, you don't have that in bullseye. I suggest you apply the same fix you already did here [2] and stop building the python package for now if that works. Paul [1] https://salsa.debian.org/jamessan/subversion/-/commit/86d3a12b44cedb5e3222da54408ed80d5e9db19c [2] https://salsa.debian.org/jamessan/subversion/-/commit/ed844b173c82fd13157ca549f786ac9621ffbcf4
