Hi,
On 23-06-27 09:05:43, Georg Faerber wrote:
> Regarding the test: I'll seek comments of the Ruby team before filling
> the -pu; I believe the risk of regressions should be fairly low, as
> arel, as described, has been part of activerecord since quite some
> time. I'll test this especially in c
Hi,
On 23-06-26 10:27:37, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> Just to make sure, someone still is working on this to make sure it's
> fixed in bookworm?
I'll take care of it.
> I guess the first step is to wait for the package to transition to
> trixie and then do the -pu? I suspect it will be hard to test
On 2023-06-26 10:27:37, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
[...]
> I guess the first step is to wait for the package to transition to
> trixie and then do the -pu? I suspect it will be hard to test this in
> trixie since you'd need to upgrade from buster to trixie, right?
I meant bullseye here of course, so
On 2023-06-24 22:38:38, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
[...]
>> I'll prepare a ruby-activerecord proposed-update targeting bookworm.
>
> This needs to be fixed in sid first.
>
> Adding the Conflicts against ruby-arel in ruby-activerecord requires
> changes in src:ruby-premailer-rails, too, since that (d
Control: reassign -1 ruby-activerecord 2:6.1.7.3+dfsg-1
Control: retitle -1 ruby-activerecord: missing Conflicts: ruby-arel
Control: affects -1 + src:schleuder
Control: clone -1 -2 -3
Control: reassign -2 ruby-arel 9.0.0-2
Control: tag -2 sid trixie
Control: retitle -2 ruby-arel: obsolete, integra
Hi,
On 23-06-24 14:58:21, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Shouldn't these conflicts rather be in ruby-activerecord?
Yes, I agree, that's the correct place.
> As I understand the history, arel has been merged into activerecord (5 years
> ago, probably version 6.0.x) and the "old" arel 9 is no longer co
On 24/06/2023 02.22, Georg Faerber wrote:
I believe that's caused by ruby-arel, the attached patches fix the issue
in my tests.
Shouldn't these conflicts rather be in ruby-activerecord?
As I understand the history, arel has been merged into activerecord (5
years ago, probably version 6.0.x) an
Control: tag -1 + patch
Hi,
Thanks for the report!
On 23-06-23 11:20:28, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Package: schleuder
>
> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade
> from 'buster' to 'bullseye' to 'bookworm'.
> It installed fine in 'buster', and upgraded to 'bullseye'
Package: schleuder
Version: 4.0.3-7
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package fails to upgrade from
'buster' to 'bullseye' to 'bookworm'.
It installed fine in 'buster', and upgraded to 'bullseye' successfully,
but
9 matches
Mail list logo
