On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > 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?
The 20 days provides more time to find show stopping issues in unstable since the changes are so large. This seems fine since the security issue itself is minor. Best wishes, Mike -- 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/aanlktik7ymfp-fewhkzyq38hoyenggt8o8=1q3dz6...@mail.gmail.com
