Re: RFS: ruby-bdb [RC]

Hi David, On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 02:30:47PM +0200, David Suárez wrote: > Hi, > Fixed. > > > 3. I trust you've tested the package, possibly with some of it's > > > r-depends (dhelp?) > > > > Not much, but Im thinking on test this better on an amd64 machine :S > Tested with dhelp (BTW it needs

Re: New upstream for ruby-omniauth-google-oauth2

On Monday 05 May 2014 09:19 PM, Nitesh A Jain wrote: > Hello > > I have updated the ruby-omniauth-google-oauth2 package. I have pushed > the changes to the repo > Can any DD review and update it > > Thanks Uploaded. Thanks! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

New upstream for ruby-omniauth-google-oauth2

Hello I have updated the ruby-omniauth-google-oauth2 package. I have pushed the changes to the repo Can any DD review and update it Thanks -- Nitesh A Jain "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" http://about.me/niteshajain signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bug#739611: Current status of ruby1.9.1-rm transition

Am 05.05.2014 15:27, schrieb Antonio Terceiro: > On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 04:35:56PM +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: >> A quick status update of the current state of the transition. If >> ruby1.9.1 was removed today, the following things would break / removed >> too: >> >> # ruby-gnome2 FTBFS

Re: Current status of ruby1.9.1-rm transition

On Sunday 04 May 2014 08:05 PM, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > # ruby-patron FTBFS 744034 - autoremoval scheduled for 2014-05-08 > ruby-patron ruby-faraday ruby-omniauth-twitter ruby-sham-rack rabbit > ruby-faraday-middleware ruby-oauth2 ruby-sawyer ruby-twitter ruby-carrierwave > ruby-typhoeus

Re: ruby-sqlite3 FTBFS

On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 05:00:58PM +0200, David Suárez wrote: > Hi, > > El Domingo, 4 de mayo de 2014 16:06:50 Christian Hofstaedtler escribió: > > Upstream said something about LE vs. BE: > > https://github.com/sparklemotion/sqlite3-ruby/issues/128 > > If you look at s390x build log: > > > Expe

Re: rdoc gem dependency in bcrypt

On Monday 05 May 2014 06:51 PM, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > the libruby* packages _do_ provide a gemspec for rdoc. $ dpkg -L > libruby2.0 libruby2.1 | grep rdoc.*gemspec > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/2.0.0/specifications/default/rdoc-4.0.0.gemspec > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/2.1.0/specifications/default/rdoc-4.1.0.g

Re: rdoc gem dependency in bcrypt

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 06:18:02PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On Monday 05 May 2014 06:14 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > rdoc command is bundled with ruby package but it doesn't provide a > > gemspec. There is a separate rdoc gem and bcypt gemspec depends on it. > > Would it be safe

Re: Current status of ruby1.9.1-rm transition

On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 04:35:56PM +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > A quick status update of the current state of the transition. If > ruby1.9.1 was removed today, the following things would break / > removed too: > > coquelicot # FTBFS (ruby1.9.1) > sup-mail # FTBFS (ruby1.9.1) + waiting fo

Re: rdoc gem dependency in bcrypt

On Monday 05 May 2014 06:14 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote: > Hi, > > rdoc command is bundled with ruby package but it doesn't provide a > gemspec. There is a separate rdoc gem and bcypt gemspec depends on it. > Would it be safe to remove it from bcrypt gemspec or should we package > rdoc separately? rai

rdoc gem dependency in bcrypt

Hi, rdoc command is bundled with ruby package but it doesn't provide a gemspec. There is a separate rdoc gem and bcypt gemspec depends on it. Would it be safe to remove it from bcrypt gemspec or should we package rdoc separately? Thanks Praveen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@l

Re: mini_portile dependency in nokogiri gemspec

On Sunday 04 May 2014 08:26 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote: > Now I found nokogiri has a dependency on mini_portile. Should we remove > this from nokogiri gemspec? (like we do for bundler and rubygems)? I have made the changes in git, if there are no objections, I'll upload it in another 2 days. -- To