Hi Antonio,
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 04:35:54PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Hello everyone, > I am planning to revert ruby-rack on unstable back to upstream version > 1.4.x by using an epoch. ruby-rack 1.5.x breaks rails session > management, and as a consequence, redmine. Thanks for taking care of this. > More details in the correspondin bug: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=711236 > For now, this is the easiest way to have a (partially¹) working Rails > stack on unstable with rails 3, since rails 4 is not complete yet. > During the upcoming Ruby sprint in January, I hope we can design a plan > going forward as rails 4 is out there and we can't stay stuck at rails > 3. > ¹ ruby-arel and ruby-tzinfo versions do not satisfy the rails > dependencies as understood by bundler anymore, so creating a new app > will still fail. But if you comment or remove the Gemfile, it kinda > works. > I have prepared an updated ruby-rack, and I wanted help testing it to > make sure we don't have an even bigger breakage with stuff wanting rack > >= 1.5 without declaring it explicitly in the dependencies. > AFAICT the following packages have dependencies that need have their > dependencies tightened to cope with the epoch: ruby-bcat, ruby-innate > and ruby-actionpack-4.0. I have already commited the needed changes to > their git repositories. > The package I got can be obtained at > http://people.debian.org/~terceiro/tmp/ruby-rack_1.4.5-1_all.deb I have tested your package together with ruby-innate. Although innate upstream declared a ruby-rack >= 1.5.2 dependency, it is building and working fine with 1.4.5 (more precisely your package). I have no innate application, but I played with the provided examples and looking at the change in the source, nothing looked as a specific change for a newer version of Rack. So I guess that for ruby-innate, one should just drop the version in the dependency. About the epoch, as I said earlier on IRC, I think it might be better to go with a 1.5.2+really1.4.5-1 or something similar since: - it is supposed to be a temporary fix. Having to cope with an epoch indefinitely because of this issue would be a pity - packages depending on ruby-rack >= 1.5 will be broken in unstable anyway with or without epoch. Cheers, Cédric
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature