On 03/12/15 13:15, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 07:08:55PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 02/12/15 17:48, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:09:09AM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: >>>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 01:24:29AM +0100, Axel Beckert wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>>>>> On 30/10/15 14:34, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>>>>>> That'd only leave us with the apache bug. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's a patch available for that now, right? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. It has been included in the upload to experimental 1.5 days ago: >>>>> https://packages.qa.debian.org/liba/libapache2-mod-perl2/news/20151130T194855Z.html >>>> >>>> I will run some test builds with perl 5.22, that package, and the packages >>>> build-depending on libapache2-mod-perl2 over the next day or so. Then >>>> hopefully we can really get this transition under way! >>> >>> I've tested the packages which were blocked by libapache2-mod-perl2 >>> today, and filed two new bug reports, against libembperl-perl[1] and >>> libapache-gallery-perl[2]. The former unfortunately has a history of >>> breaking with new perl releases and fixes may not be forthcoming; >>> it also has a low and diminishing popcon, so I think at this stage we >>> should not let it block our transition. >>> >>> The latter is a trivial fix (and does not block the transition as >>> it's an arch:all package); I expect it will be fixed either by the >>> maintainer, or by NMU, soon. >>> >>> I will try some real world testing with the new libapache2-mod-perl2 >>> package in sid/perl 5.20 later this week, and then I think we can plan >>> to go ahead with the transition after that - as soon as this weekend >>> if other ongoing transitions allow? >> >> Yeah, that's probably fine. Let us know how your tests go. > > Niko reminded me that 5.22.1 is due out as soon as the weekend, and > it would make sense to transition with that rather than have to > build a mini-transition in later. So we'll work to integrate that > into experimental with suitable QA before the transition, if that's > okay with you. I think that should only delay things by a couple of > days.
Sure, that sounds better indeed. Let's do that. Cheers, Emilio