On 16/11/15 20:08, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 10/11/15 19:49, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> On 09/11/15 10:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>>> On 08/11/15 23:44, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: >>>>> FTR, we're now down to just subversion, uwsgi and zeroc-ice. >>>>> >>>>> James and Antonio are making some progress with subversion in >>>>> #803589, but it appears to be more tricky (and upstream has no fix >>>>> yet). >>>>> >>>>> zeroc-ice has an upstream fix, but the delta is too large for me to >>>>> backport it as part of an NMU. >>>>> >>>>> Haven't heard back yet from the uwsgi team. >>>> >>>> Thanks for the update. >>>> >>>> You can make those bugs serious now as this is imminent. Let us know once >>>> subversion is fixed. >>> >>> You can go ahead with the default switch. >> >> ruby-defaults migrated over the weekend. I guess the next step is dropping >> ruby2.1 from the list of supported interpreters and then binNMUing the >> packages >> that depend on both libruby2.1 and libruby2.2, so we can get rid of ruby2.1? > > Yes. Do you want to create a new transition tracker for that, or change > the existing one?
I have updated the existing one, see https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ruby2.2.html Emilio
