On 2023-03-28 15:20:17 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > I'm sorry but this bug report assumes an unsupported configuration: > > > APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, > > 'stable-security'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), > > (1, 'experimental') > > This is not supportable at all.
Why not? Anyway, I doubt that this is related to the issue: packages appear in unstable first, so that "testing" and "stable" should have no effect in normal time. > Plus: > > > Versions of packages apt-listbugs depends on: > [...] > > ii ruby 1:3.0+1 > > Ruby 3.0, which is explicitly mentioned in the bug report as being used, > was just temporarily in bookworm as an intermediate step between 2.7 > (bullseye) and 3.1 which is the version that is actually to be released > with bookworm. But at some point (when I reported the bug), it was in unstable. See https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ruby-defaults [2022-09-20] Accepted ruby-defaults 1:3.0+3.1 (source) into unstable (Antonio Terceiro) [2022-05-01] Accepted ruby-defaults 1:3.0+2 (source) into experimental (Antonio Terceiro) [2022-03-10] ruby-defaults 1:3.0+1 MIGRATED to testing (Debian testing watch) [2022-03-07] Accepted ruby-defaults 1:3.0+1 (source) into unstable (Lucas Kanashiro) I had ruby 1:3.0+1 because it got into unstable on 2022-03-07. ruby-defaults 1:3.0+3.1 went into unstable on 2022-09-20, while I reported the bug on 2022-09-14. So it is completely normal that I had ruby 1:3.0+1 at that time. > One cannot really support a package that is not even in Debian > anymore, Well, the bug report was valid on 2022-09-14. Perhaps ruby got fixed in the mean time. But perhaps the bug is still not fixed. And according to https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1019732#34 (for the error reproduced a second time), the bug is still there: ii apt 2.6.0 ii ruby 1:3.1 ii ruby-debian 0.3.10+b8 ii ruby-gettext 3.3.3-2 ii ruby-soap4r 2.0.5-6 ii ruby-unicode 0.4.4.4-1+b5 ii ruby-xmlparser 0.7.3-4+b4 i.e. ruby 1:3.1, which is the current version. > or to a system that mixes random versions of packages > that were once in testing. There are no mixed random versions. Moreover, when there are incompatibilities between packages, co-installation must be prevented by "Breaks:", etc. because upgrades for unstable may be asynchronous. > Unless you are able to reproduce this in a supported configuration > (either stable or testing, but not something random in between), this is > not a valid bug report. It's also not OK to reassign it to the Ruby > interpreter, since there is no evidence of this actually being a bug in > it, or even in a supported version of Ruby. You should really learn how to read a bug report. It is normal that bug reports mention old versions of packages, because after some time, packages are updated. And bugs in old versions could still be there in newer versions if they have not been fixed, which precisely seems to be the case here: bug in ruby 1:3.0+1 on 2022-09-14, and the same bug in ruby 1:3.1 a few days ago (reported by another user). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
