[DRE-maint] Bug#711236: RFC: reverting ruby-rack to 1.4.x with an epoch

[Cédric Boutillier]

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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers/attachments/20131023/8312b9a3/attachment.sig>