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. > 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? > > > 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? - Lucas -- 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/20100913131218.ga25...@xanadu.blop.info