Hi, On 23-06-24 14:58:21, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Shouldn't these conflicts rather be in ruby-activerecord?
Yes, I agree, that's the correct place. > As I understand the history, arel has been merged into activerecord (5 years > ago, probably version 6.0.x) and the "old" arel 9 is no longer compatible > with current activerecord 6.1.x. This is probably unrelated to schleuder > (which only exposes the bug). That's my understanding as well. > Interestingly this didn't happen on buster->bullseye upgrades, but perhaps > arel 9 was still compatible with activerecord 6.0.x. Yeah, I wondered about this also, but I'm unsure why is that, so far. > Should ruby-arel be RM:ed? > Note: one reverse build dependency > # Broken Build-Depends: > ruby-premailer-rails: ruby-arel Yes -- I sent a mail about this to the Ruby team, see [1] for details. > I'll give it a try... yes, the conflict against ruby-arel fixes the > upgrade path. Great, thanks. So, given the above, I believe this bug should be reassigned to ruby-activerecord, and schleuder should be marked as affected? Also, I guess, as this issue is not specific to schleuder, probably more packages which rely on ruby-activerecord are affected. I'll prepare a ruby-activerecord proposed-update targeting bookworm. Cheers, Georg [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2023/06/msg00004.html