Re: [RFS] ruby-octokit

On 26/01/20 6:10 pm, Nilesh Patra wrote: > Hi > I have updated ruby-octokit to version - 4.15.0 . It builds fine on a > clean chroot, is lintian-clean and the autopkgtests pass as well. I > have pushed my changes here: [1]. This update is needed for gitlab. > Needs review and sponsorship. > >

Re: RFS: ruby-elasticsearch

On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 6:09 pm, Samyak Jain wrote: Hey, I have updated ruby-elasticsearch from 5.0.5 to 6.8.0. The required changes can be found at:https://salsa.debian.org/samyak-jn-guest/ruby-elasticsearch/ The package

Re: [RFS] ruby-task-list

On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 12:44 pm, Nilesh Patra wrote: Hi, I have updated ruby-task-list to version - 2.3.1 as required via gitlab. It builds fine in a clean chroot, and autopkgtests pass as well. I have pushed the changes here[1]. Need Review and sponsorship. [1]:

Re: [RFS] ruby-omniauth-github/

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 3:12 pm, Nilesh Patra wrote: Hi, I have updated ruby-omniauth-github/ to 1.4.0 as required by gitlab, build+autopkgtests look fine. I have pushed my changes to team repo here[1]. Needs review and sponsorship. [1]:

Re: [RFS] ruby-erubi

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 2:54 pm, Nilesh Patra wrote: Hi, I have updated erubi to version 1.9.0 as needed by gitlab, builds fine in a clean chroot+autopkgtests pass. I have pushed changes to team repo here[1]. Needs review and sponsorship [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-erubi

Re: ruby-aws-sdk_2.11.422-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 2020, ജനുവരി 12 1:53:56 AM IST, "David Suárez" wrote: >Could you try again?. The upload goes now for experimental until >duplicates packages of v3 of this same gem gets ROM. > >I will request ROM for: > > - ruby-aws-sdk-s3 > - ruby-aws-sdk-core > - ruby-aws-sdk-kms > >The motive

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On ശ, Jan 11, 2020 at 20:46, David Suárez wrote: Well, if you applies this, I dunno why the upload were blocked until upstream CI of gitlab. If gitlab is in experimental, I dunno why it should block any unstable (working and well done packaging) upload. Because we actually run the

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

upstream CI is a work around till we fix the debian autopkgtest. On 6/1/20 20:25, Pirate Praveen wrote: > https://gitlab.com/utkarsh2102/gitlab/-/jobs/396211773 > This could be a simple fix in tests and not a real failure. But it'd be good to fix the tests Tests for version 2.11.422-1

Re: ruby-aws-sdk_2.11.422-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 2020, ജനുവരി 13 4:05:30 PM IST, Debian FTP Masters wrote: > > >Version check failed: >Your upload included the binary package ruby-aws-sdk-core, version >2.11.422-1, for all, >however testing already has version 3.67.0-1. >Uploads to experimental must have a higher version than present in

Re: ruby-redis 4.0 transition - help needed

On വ്യാ, Nov 21, 2019 at 15:10, Pirate Praveen wrote: On വ്യാ, Nov 21, 2019 at 15:00, Pirate Praveen wrote: On വ്യാ, Nov 21, 2019 at 14:50, Pirate Praveen  wrote: Hi team, Needs help with ruby-fakeredis. For ruby-mail-room and ruby-redis-namespace I will try if new upstreams

help needed for fixing ruby-github-markup test failure

Hi team, I was trying to fix the rc bug #938419 (just changing dependency to python3-docutils and changing python2 to python in lib/github/markups.rb seems enough) but noticed the build is failing and tracker.d.o shows autopkgtest regression. Full build log

Re: help needed for fixing ruby-github-markup test failure

On വെ, Jan 17, 2020 at 17:59, Cédric Boutillier wrote: Hi Praveen, On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:50:29AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: On വ്യാ, Jan 16, 2020 at 22:55, Pirate Praveen wrote: > A better diff is below and possibly ruby-html-pipeline change is the > culprit (will

Re: help needed for fixing ruby-github-markup test failure

On വ്യാ, Jan 16, 2020 at 22:40, Pirate Praveen wrote: Hi team, I was trying to fix the rc bug #938419 (just changing dependency to python3-docutils and changing python2 to python in lib/github/markups.rb seems enough) but noticed the build is failing and tracker.d.o shows autopkgtest

Re: help needed for fixing ruby-github-markup test failure

On വ്യാ, Jan 16, 2020 at 22:55, Pirate Praveen wrote: A better diff is below and possibly ruby-html-pipeline change is the culprit (will check now), ruby-html-pipeline was indeed the culprit here. But after switching to python3-docutils, one test is failing. I tried to follow the same

Re: ruby-rack-cors_1.1.1-1~exp1; please test diaspora and gitlab

On തി, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:37, Cédric Boutillier wrote: Hi, I have just uploaded ruby-rack-cors 1.1.1 to experimental to fix #944849 (CVE-2019-18978). Please test gitlab and diaspora and see if it is suitable for an upload to unstable. This is a breaking change and we need to update

Re:The state of the art with the current ruby-aws-sdk packaging versions (was ruby-aws-sdk_2.11.422-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)

On 2020, ജനുവരി 13 12:00:38 AM IST, "David Suárez" wrote: >Correct me if I'm wrong... But going this way, will not getting worst >the current state we have with this package, with binary|sources >packages duplicates ? > >Now's we have: > >- ruby-aws-sdk (v1): > > + Pulled from github, so

Re: Upload of ruby-i18n 1.5 broke other software packages (#927339)

On 2019, ഡിസംബർ 27 5:47:23 PM IST, Daniel Leidert wrote: >Am Freitag, den 27.12.2019, 13:07 +0530 schrieb Pirate Praveen: >> On 2019, ഡിസംബർ 27 2:45:14 AM IST, Daniel Leidert > >> wrote: >> > Hi there, >> > >> > I recently saw one of my packages fa

Re: RFH: jekyll fails autopkgtest but succeeds all tests on build time

On തി, Jan 6, 2020 at 17:37, Daniel Leidert wrote: Am Montag, den 06.01.2020, 17:34 +0100 schrieb Daniel Leidert: [..] Unfortunately gem2deb now breaks the build process (line 2489ff): https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/jekyll/-/jobs/494291#L2489 > Rewriting shebang line of

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On തി, Jan 6, 2020 at 20:12, David Suárez wrote: Hi, Just updated the packaged in salsa. It gets a new major version (1 -> 2), so they are not compatible. The unique reverse dependency is gitlab (but in experimental version). So it's should not breaks nothing, except for end users of

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On ചൊ, Jan 7, 2020 at 20:41, David Suárez wrote: I mean, that it not breaks nothing, not for it was in experimental if not for the version supported in gitlab. From gitlab GemFile: ''gem 'aws-sdk'' Gitlab dit not provides any version, so I think we can bump aws-sdk to v3 too.

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On ബു, Jan 8, 2020 at 01:16, Pirate Praveen wrote: ruby-aws-sdk 2 -> 3 is huge change. It adds 220 new dependencies for example. https://rubygems.org/gems/aws-sdk-resources

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On ബു, Jan 8, 2020 at 01:05, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: The MR has been created upstream. Link here[1]. NOTE: If this pans out the way it should, we'd need to update ruby-parallel, too. Thanks Utkarsh, some tests failed. https://gitlab.com/utkarsh2102/gitlab/-/jobs/396211773 This could be a

Re: Upload of ruby-i18n 1.5 broke other software packages (#927339)

On 2019, ഡിസംബർ 27 2:45:14 AM IST, Daniel Leidert wrote: >Hi there, > >I recently saw one of my packages failing debci/autopkgtest with this >error: > >> /usr/lib/ruby/2.5.0/rubygems/specification.rb:2327:in >`raise_if_conflicts': Unable to activate jekyll-3.8.3, because >i18n-1.5.3 conflicts

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk

On ബു, Jan 8, 2020 at 10:00, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote: On 07/01/2020 20:49, Pirate Praveen wrote: On ബു, Jan 8, 2020 at 01:16, Pirate Praveen wrote: ruby-aws-sdk 2 -> 3 is huge change. It adds 220 new dependencies for example. https://rubygems.org/gems/aws-sdk-resour

Re: RFS: ruby-abstract-type

On 2020, മാർച്ച് 10 9:11:34 AM IST, Abhijith PA wrote: >Utkarsh, > >On 10/03/20 1:11 am, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: >> Hi Kiran, >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 9:27 PM wrote: >>> Consider to review and upload it. >> >> Thank you for your work; uploaded! :) >> Once it clears NEW, we need to do a

Re: parser vs ruby_parser gems

me (like we did earlier and a common practice for forks) to create a unique name for the new package. So we can package parser gem as ruby-whitequark-parser. >On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 9:43 PM Pirate Praveen > >wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> rubocop 0.74 in experimental requir

Re: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Help with fixing jekyll (wrt src:node-webpack)

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 11:50 am, Pirate Praveen wrote: On 2020, മാർച്ച് 14 7:32:59 AM IST, Daniel Leidert wrote: Hi there, I reported the build issue against webpack and the bug was closed just a few hours ago. Is this happening with the "fixed" webpa

Re: RFS: ruby-net-http-persistent

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 4:45 pm, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: Hi, On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 4:19 PM Pirate Praveen wrote: How did you run the autopkgtest? I'm still seeing the failure. After bundle-bin-path there should be a testsuite which failed. Can anyone else confirm this? I can confirm

Re: RFS: ruby-net-http-persistent

On 2020, മാർച്ച് 14 11:53:08 AM IST, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > >On 2020, മാർച്ച് 14 10:00:26 AM IST, Samyak Jain > wrote: >>Hey, >> >>For the ruby-faraday to be uploaded to unstable for v1.0.0. We need to >>upload ruby-net-http-persistent to unstable

Re: RFS: ruby-concord

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:33 pm, ki...@disroot.org wrote: Hi, I prepared the packaging of ruby-concord. It is lintian clean and tested with sbuild. Further information about this package can be accessed from the URL : https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-concord also like to add it

parser vs ruby_parser gems

Hi, rubocop 0.74 in experimental requires ruby gem named "parser" but ruby-parser package include "ruby_parser" gem. Any ideas to move forward? Should we package both gems? Praveen

heads up: ruby-thor 0.20.3 will be uploaded to unstable soon

Hi, ruby-thor 0.20.3 is required for rails 6 transition and was in experimental for a long time. I tested reverse dependencies today and found only ruby-coveralls is failing with this version (#956600 filed). Out of 25 autopkgtests 25 rebuils, these were failing already: ruby-combustion

Re: heads up: ruby-thor 0.20.3 will be uploaded to unstable soon

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 8:00 pm, Pirate Praveen wrote: Hi, ruby-thor 0.20.3 is required for rails 6 transition and was in experimental for a long time. I tested reverse dependencies today and found only ruby-coveralls is failing with this version (#956600 filed). Out of 25

Re: heads up: ruby-thor 0.20.3 will be uploaded to unstable soon

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:15 pm, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: Hi Praveen, On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 8:00 PM Pirate Praveen wrote: ruby-thor 0.20.3 is required for rails 6 transition and was in experimental for a long time. I tested reverse dependencies today and found only ruby-coveralls

Re: parser vs ruby_parser gems

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:25 am, Antonio Terceiro wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 01:41:37PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: On 2020, മാർച്ച് 12 7:58:34 PM IST, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 07:05:42PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> On 2020, മാർച്ച് 12 12

Re: parser vs ruby_parser gems

On 2020, മാർച്ച് 12 7:58:34 PM IST, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 07:05:42PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> On 2020, മാർച്ച് 12 12:28:52 AM IST, Kiran Skunjumon > wrote: >> >their is two gem parser and ruby_parser. >> >In debian ruby_parser

Re: RFS: ruby-aws-sdk (second try)

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:28 pm, Cédric Boutillier wrote: Dear David, I am re-reading your mail https://lists.debian.org/CAJg5+Z2th-FNAxLNHb9+xkRz6O1RKb0RFxGCJ=yHOFSw2F38=w...@mail.gmail.com about the status of the various versions of ruby-aws-sdk. As I understand the situation now: -

Re: RFS: ruby-net-http-persistent

On 2020, മാർച്ച് 14 10:00:26 AM IST, Samyak Jain wrote: >Hey, > >For the ruby-faraday to be uploaded to unstable for v1.0.0. We need to >upload ruby-net-http-persistent to unstable. bundler autopkgtest was failing earlier. Happy to see it working now. I'll upload it. >The changelog entry

Re: Heads-up: major version update: ruby-http (from 3.3.0-2 to 4.4.1-1)

On 2020, ഏപ്രിൽ 5 7:44:03 PM IST, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: >Hi Praveen, > >On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:19 AM Pirate Praveen > wrote: >> It'd be better to share the reverse dependencies that fail to give a >better idea of the impact. > >ruby-twitter and ruby-webmock fail.

Re: RFS: ruby-ruby-dep

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:02 am, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: Hi Kiran, On Sun, 5 Apr, 2020, 4:18 AM , wrote: https://salsa.debian.org/hacksk-guest/ruby-ruby-dep Consider to review and upload it. Please also enable tests by pulling the specs/ from g/h. Utkarsh, It would be a good idea to

Re: Heads-up: major version update: ruby-http (from 3.3.0-2 to 4.4.1-1)

On 03/04/20 11:19 am, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > > On 2020, ഏപ്രിൽ 3 4:22:21 AM IST, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I've prepared the major version update for ruby-http, that is, from >> 3.3.0-2 to 4.4.1-1. >> I intend to upload this version to u

Re: Heads-up: major version update: ruby-http (from 3.3.0-2 to 4.4.1-1)

On 2020, ഏപ്രിൽ 3 4:22:21 AM IST, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: >Hi all, > >I've prepared the major version update for ruby-http, that is, from >3.3.0-2 to 4.4.1-1. >I intend to upload this version to unstable (after checking its >rev-deps, of course) as soon as ruby-http-parser clears NEW (uploaded

planning to upload ruby-excon 0.72 to unstable causing ruby-vcr to ftbfs

Hi ruby team, ruby-excon 0.72 causes ftbfs in ruby-vcr (all other reverse dependencies still work) https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=954731 upstream did not respond for over a month. If someone is interested to take care of ruby-vcr, please fix this or at least tell me if I

Re: planning to upload ruby-excon 0.72 to unstable causing ruby-vcr to ftbfs

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 3:03 pm, Daniel Leidert wrote: Am Sonntag, den 29.03.2020, 14:15 +0530 schrieb Pirate Praveen: ruby-excon 0.72 causes ftbfs in ruby-vcr (all other reverse dependencies still work) https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=954731 upstream did

Re: RFC: pry 0.13.0 upload to experimental?

On 2020, ഏപ്രിൽ 2 6:46:51 AM IST, Youhei SASAKI wrote: >Hi, > >I'll upload pry 0.13.0 into unstable. >Thanks for your commit. Did you also fix the two broken packages mentioned by Daniel ? > >On April 2, 2020 9:48:52 AM Daniel Leidert wrote: > >> Hi there, >> >> pry currently fails to build

Re: RFC: pry 0.13.0 upload to experimental?

On 2020, ഏപ്രിൽ 2 12:43:32 PM IST, Youhei SASAKI wrote: >Hi, > >On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 15:24:11 +0900, >Pirate Praveen wrote: >> >> On 2020, ഏപ്രിൽ 2 6:46:51 AM IST, Youhei SASAKI > wrote: >> > >> >I'll upload pry 0.13.0 into unstable. >> >

Re: RFC: pry 0.13.0 upload to experimental?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:20 pm, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: Hi Praveen, On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:54 AM Pirate Praveen wrote: Did you also fix the two broken packages mentioned by Daniel ? a) pry has "Breaks" for respective packages. b) ruby-guard has been fixed and uploaded. c

Re: RFC: pry 0.13.0 upload to experimental?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 4:30 pm, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pirate Praveen wrote: >> >I'll upload pry 0.13.0 into unstable. >> >Thanks for your commit. >> Did you also fix the two broken packages mentioned by Daniel ? >I think no ne

Re: RFH: testing Rails 6 reverse dependencies

On 2020, മേയ് 9 10:15:36 AM IST, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > >On 2020, മേയ് 9 3:09:54 AM IST, Georg Faerber wrote: >>Hi, >> >>On 20-05-09 00:02:06, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> Please help us in getting Rails 6 to Sid & B

Re: RFH: testing Rails 6 reverse dependencies

On 2020, മേയ് 9 10:20:03 AM IST, Pirate Praveen wrote: >For packages listed under, > >Ready in unstable (need confirmation, dependency is not strict) (many packages >have no tests) Here is a list of packages that fail autopkgtest, https://release.debian.org/britney/ps

Re: RFH: testing Rails 6 reverse dependencies

On 2020, മേയ് 9 3:09:54 AM IST, Georg Faerber wrote: >Hi, > >On 20-05-09 00:02:06, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: >> [...] >> >> Please help us in getting Rails 6 to Sid & Bullseye, too :) >> >> If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask them here or >> on IRC. > >I'm wondering how the

Re: gem2deb stable-bpo problem

On 2020, മേയ് 3 11:57:23 AM IST, "Marc Dequènes (duck)" wrote: >Quack, > >On 2020-05-03 00:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > >> One issue in there is that gem2deb from bullseye (and therefore that >> backport) generates a Build-Depends on gem2deb (>= 1), and in buster >> that will only be

Re: Rails 6 transition - current status and blockers

On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 01:54, Pirate Praveen wrote: After removing yarnpkg from Depends of ruby-webpacker, its autopkgtest started failing, this needs to be fixed now. This is now fixed, and if we can belive https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rails we should see rails migrating to testing

Re: RFS: ruby-js-regex 3.4.0-1

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:28, Pirate Praveen wrote: I was suggesting this in case only those two gems need packaging. But if a lot more needs to be packaged, we can keep the tests disabled. Uploaded, thanks Cocoa for your work.

Re: RFS: ruby-js-regex 3.4.0-1

On 2020, സെപ്റ്റംബർ 10 3:36:19 AM IST, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: >Hiya, > >On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:31 PM Pirate Praveen >wrote: >> We don't need to package every development dependency, only those required >> for functional tests need to be packaged. So mutant-rspec

Help with ruby-uglifier patch to replace uglify-harmony with terser

Hi, I have managed to replace uglify-harmony.js (embedded copy, generated file, not packaged in debian and unmaintained upstream) with terser in ruby-uglifier. Here is the initial rough patch. https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-uglifier/-/blob/master/debian/patches/005-use-terser.patch

Request for help with diaspora package

Hi, I have been able to package almost all dependencies of diaspora (compass and sass gems had to be embedded because they are no longer supported upstream and their debian packages got removed from the archive) and now facing a tough ui bug (no error during build/assets:precompile). Details

Rails 6 transition - current status and blockers

Hi, As discussed in today's ruby team BoF, I'm sending the list of current blockers for rails 6 transition. 1. node-yarnpkg blocked by node-babel removal (need to port to node-babel7) - via ruby-webpackager which is currently in Depends for rails meta package (rails new foo needs it). One

Re: Rails 6 transition - current status and blockers

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 20:13, Antonio Terceiro wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 02:03:41AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: Hi, As discussed in today's ruby team BoF, I'm sending the list of current blockers for rails 6 transition. 1. node-yarnpkg blocked by node-babel removal (need

Re: Rails 6 transition - current status and blockers

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 6:33 pm, Pirate Praveen wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 20:13, Antonio Terceiro wrote: On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 02:03:41AM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: Hi, As discussed in today's ruby team BoF, I'm sending the list of current blockers for rails 6

Re: RFS: ruby-js-regex 3.4.0-1

On 2020, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 26 7:38:31 PM IST, Cocoa wrote: >Hi, > >The following packages are ready to be uploaded (I also verified the >points listed >onhttp://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging#Requesting_Sponsorship). > >Could you please sponsor them? > > ruby-js-regex 3.4.0-1 You need to

Re: RFS: ruby-character-set 1.4.0

On 2020, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 24 12:14:49 AM IST, Cocoa wrote: >Hi, > >The following packages are ready to be uploaded (I also verified the >points listed >onhttp://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging#Requesting_Sponsorship). > >Could you please sponsor them? > > ruby-character-set 1.4.0 Uploaded,

Re: RFS: ruby-js-regex 3.4.0-1

On 2020, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 27 12:02:56 PM IST, Cocoa wrote: > >On 8/27/20 2:58 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> >> On 2020, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 26 7:38:31 PM IST, Cocoa wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The following packages are ready to be uploaded (I also verified the >>

Re: RFS: ruby-js-regex 3.4.0-1

>Okay. So should I try to redo it from the github tarball? I've already >pushed the changes, so the latest commits by me would have to be >reverted and the package redone. You don't need to redo any changes. Just consider it as another upstream version. Since we have not uploaded the new

Re: RFS: ruby-health-check/3.0.0-1, ruby-leaflet-rails/1.3.1+dfsg-3, ruby-markdown-it-html5-embed/1.0.0+dfsg-4, ruby-rails-assets-blueimp-gallery/2.33.0-2, ruby-rails-assets-favico.js/0.3.10+dfsg-2, r

On 2020, ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 17 6:44:26 AM IST, Abraham Raji wrote: >Hi, > >The following packages are ready to be uploaded (I also verified >thepoints listed on >http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging#Requesting_Sponsorship).Could >you please sponsor them? > >ruby-health-check/3.0.0-1 repo Did

heads up about lxc default network change (for meta/setup)

Hi, I was asked about this change in lxc configuration when I did an apt update on sid. --- /etc/lxc/default.conf 2020-02-03 18:58:42.920817709 +0530 +++ /etc/lxc/default.conf.dpkg-new 2020-05-25 21:41:32.0 +0530 @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ -lxc.apparmor.profile = generated

ruby:Depends and minimum version of gem2deb

Hi, If you are using ruby:Depends in control, please update minimum version of gem2deb to 1.0. Just hit by this when backporting pry (though both versions of pry also fails when building ruby-jira). Also can someone help me with ruby-jira for buster-backports? In salsa, buster-backports

Re: ruby:Depends and minimum version of gem2deb

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 7:11 pm, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: Hi, On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 6:50 PM Utkarsh Gupta wrote: On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 3:42 PM Pirate Praveen wrote: > An error occurred while loading > ./spec/jira/resource/user_factory_spec.rb. > Failure/Error: req

Re: ruby-webdrivers_4.4.1-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

On 19/09/20 3:30 am, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > Hi, > > please mention the MPL license of > webdrivers-4.4.1/spec/webdrivers/geckodriver_spec.rb > in your debian/copyright. > > Thanks! > Thorsten > This is a false positive. It is matching the output of a different program not part of this

Re: RFH: FTBFS problem with jekyll build because some node* packages were updated

[Adding pkg-javascript-devel list] On 2020, ഒക്‌ടോബർ 26 12:14:08 AM IST, Daniel Leidert wrote: >Hi, > >the jekyll build fails at the moment because livereload.js created in the >override_dh_auto_build target is not created. The creation prints some >warnings: > >> make[1]: Entering directory

Re: Triaging rails 6 rebuild/autopkgtest failures and ruby team online sprint proposal

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 16:28, terce...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:43:39PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: Hi, I have documented the steps to triage failures and categorize it at https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/rails/-/wikis/Transition-to-Rails-6-for-Debian-Bullseye

ruby-karmdown 2.x upload to unstable (heads up)

Hi team, ruby-karmdown 2.x was in experimental from July 22 and bugs were filed for packages failing rebuild or autopkgtest with it. This also includes fixes for security issues. jekyll (both), rabbit (autopkgtest), ruby-cucumber-core (rebuild - boutil promised to fix this in irc),

Re: Triaging rails 6 rebuild/autopkgtest failures and ruby team online sprint proposal

On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 18:25, Pirate Praveen wrote: On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 09:06, terce...@debian.org wrote: Don't you already have the results and the FTBFS logs? I think they should receive the bugs at the same time as rails 6 is updated in unstable. I'd love to do that as well

Re: Triaging rails 6 rebuild/autopkgtest failures and ruby team online sprint proposal

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 22:02, Pirate Praveen wrote: With help from Kartik Kulkarni, we have managed to file bugs for all rebuild/autopkgtest failures except for two packages (ruby-diaspora-federation-rails, which is a dependency on diaspora and ruby-voight-kampff which is a dependency

Rails 6 will be uploaded to unstable in about 4 weeks from now

Hi, Just a reminder about upcoming rails 6 upload to unstable. Current status: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/rails/-/wikis/Transition-to-Rails-6-for-Debian-Bullseye Need help for filing bugs for packages that failed meta/build from the meta/build logs.

Backporting ruby 2.7 for gitlab

Hi, gitlab stopped working with ruby 2.5 (they officially dropped support long ago, but it was working fine till now). See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/225251 for details. In last stable release we were lucky things worked with ruby 2.3 even though it was not officially

Re: Backporting ruby 2.7 for gitlab

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 09:26, Antonio Terceiro wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 05:21:53PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: Hi, gitlab stopped working with ruby 2.5 (they officially dropped support long ago, but it was working fine till now). See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab

Re: [DRE-maint] rails update

Hi, My main motivation for maintaining rails is for gitlab. Since gitlab is not in stable, I don't usually do stable updates of rails (I think Utkarsh does it usually). I provide rails updates via buster-backports or fasttrack.debian.net. I think redmine is also supported via buster-backports

Re: rails update

y the regression. >> >> Attaching the debdiff for reference. The changes looks good to me, but >> I defintively would like to see a second pair of eyes here from the >> rails maintainers, in particular for CVE-2020-8163, Utkarsh? >> >> There is no lost work,

Re: Backporting ruby 2.7 for gitlab

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:06:56PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: I don't really care if you include it in fasttrack. As people started reporting more bugs, I decided to add ruby 2.7 to fasttrack. Some issues that popped up, ruby

Re: supported Ruby packages

On 2020, ജൂലൈ 6 6:57:39 PM IST, Sylvain Beucler wrote: >Hi, > >On 06/07/2020 09:55, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> On 2020, ജൂലൈ 6 1:09:09 PM IST, Sylvain Beucler wrote: >>> On 06/07/2020 09:01, Pirate Praveen wrote: >>>> My main motivation for maintaini

Re: supported Ruby packages

On 2020, ജൂലൈ 7 7:36:23 PM IST, "Marc Dequènes (duck)" wrote: >Quack Beuc, > >Long time no quack. > >On 2020-07-06 22:27, Sylvain Beucler wrote: > >> I was reacting to redmine actually. > >Maintainer bit here o/ > >Well I have to admit I do not agree with Praveen's conception. The >general

Triaging rails 6 rebuild/autopkgtest failures and ruby team online sprint proposal

Hi, I have documented the steps to triage failures and categorize it at https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/rails/-/wikis/Transition-to-Rails-6-for-Debian-Bullseye#todo Any help is welcome. I was thinking about an online sprint to do this for all packages that failed rebuilds/autopkgtests. How

Re: supported Ruby packages

On 2020, ജൂലൈ 15 10:38:31 AM IST, "Marc Dequènes (duck)" wrote: >I'm not sure I get what's wrong with my initial mail even if I >understand that was what triggered this heated discussion. As said above >Praveen's words led me to badly asses the situation. The fact Beuc >ended-up here

Re: Backporting ruby 2.7 for gitlab

On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 00:27, Pirate Praveen wrote: On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 00:22, Pirate Praveen wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:06:56PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: I don't really care if you include it in fasttrack

Re: Backporting ruby 2.7 for gitlab

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 00:22, Pirate Praveen wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:47, Antonio Terceiro wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:06:56PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: I don't really care if you include it in fasttrack. As people started reporting more bugs, I decided to add ruby

rails 6 will be uploaded to unstable in 8 weeks (August first week)

Hi, We have discussed about rails 6 transition in last 3 meetings and in today's meeting we decided to give an ultimatum and start filing bugs for the packages that breaks. In the coming days I will do a rebuild of all reverse (build) dependencies of rails and start filing bugs. But after

Re: rails 6 will be uploaded to unstable in 8 weeks (August first week)

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 10:42 pm, Pirate Praveen wrote: Hi, We have discussed about rails 6 transition in last 3 meetings and in today's meeting we decided to give an ultimatum and start filing bugs for the packages that breaks. In the coming days I will do a rebuild of all reverse

Re: rails 6 will be uploaded to unstable in 8 weeks (August first week)

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 10:03 am, Georg Faerber wrote: Hi, On 20-06-06 15:05:29, Pirate Praveen wrote: It has a list of all packages that failed. Now we need to file bugs for these packages. Let me know if you like to help filing bugs. Also please start fixing the packages that failed

Re: Triaging rails 6 rebuild/autopkgtest failures and ruby team online sprint proposal

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 01:19, Pirate Praveen wrote: This sprint is mainly to file bugs before we upload to unstable. So should be before August, if weekend on 25th is better we can do that. In August we can do another one to fix broken packages after rails 6 hits unstable. I have been

Re: Triaging rails 6 rebuild/autopkgtest failures and ruby team online sprint proposal

On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 09:06, terce...@debian.org wrote: Don't you already have the results and the FTBFS logs? I think they should receive the bugs at the same time as rails 6 is updated in unstable. I'd love to do that as well. But I can't promise if I will be able to file all the bugs.

Re: RFA: ruby-cucumber-wire, ruby-iso8601, ruby-tomlrb

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 22:00, stefa...@debian.org wrote: I was maintaining a few pkg-ruby-extras libraries to support the Chef stack, which was recently removed from Debian. Anyone want to pick up maintenance of them? Otherwise I'll file WNPP bugs. $ reverse-depends -b

Change whitelist and black list environment variables in gem2deb

Hi, I think we should change these two variables in gem2deb/dh_ruby DH_RUBY_GEM_INSTALL_WHITELIST_APPEND DH_RUBY_GEM_INSTALL_BLACKLIST_APPEND I think WHITELIST_APPEND can be changed to INCLUDE and BLACKLIST_APPEND to EXCLUDE. We can print a warning first and then remove them later. See

ruby-faraday 1.0 transition soon

Hi, ruby-faraday 1.0 was in experimental for quite some time. I have updated it to 1.1.0 now and planning to upload to unstable in 2 days if there is no objection. Here is the meta/build logs https://people.debian.org/~praveen/ruby-faraday-meta-build/ Some of those failed packages are

Re: ruby-faraday 1.0 transition soon

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 22:58, Pirate Praveen wrote: Hi, ruby-faraday 1.0 was in experimental for quite some time. I have updated it to 1.1.0 now and planning to upload to unstable in 2 days if there is no objection. Here is the meta/build logs https://people.debian.org/~praveen/ruby

Re: ruby-faraday 1.0 transition soon

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 23:19, Pirate Praveen wrote: Though most failures seems this, which is a missing dependency in ruby-faraday. /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/rubygems/specification.rb:1398:in `rescue in block in activate_dependencies': Could not find 'ruby2_keywords' (>= 0) among

Re: ruby-faraday 1.0 transition soon

On 2020, ഡിസംബർ 1 1:37:05 AM IST, Pirate Praveen wrote: >and I have updated status of each failed package here, >https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-faraday/-/snippets/504 > >Thanks to Utkarsh for quickly fixing ruby-gh and ruby-behance. Now we >only have to fix ruby-vcr

Re: ruby-cmdparse [was:] help welcome

On 2020, നവംബർ 10 9:23:45 PM IST, Daniel Leidert wrote: >Ok. The github sources don't contain a .gemspec file but the gem does. The >.gemspec is created by a rake task in Rakefile. > >Three options: >1) Add a patch to create the .gemspec file. >2) Run the rake task to create the gemspec file

Re: nokogumbo 2.0 and missing nokogiri.h - request for help

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 14:27, Daniel Leidert wrote: nokogumbo ships its own sources of the gumbo library which btw hasn't seen any activity since 2015. It contains significant changes to libgumbo-dev and is incompatible. Either we build against the internal source and statically link the

nokogumbo 2.0 and missing nokogiri.h - request for help

Hi ruby team, I'm trying to update ruby-nokogumbo to 2.x and the build fails since it cannot find nokogiri.h. I can see we have to not included nokogiri.h in the binary package so I tried to include it in include-headers branch in salsa (a proof of concept now as it hard codes paths). But

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >