[pkg-uWSGI-devel] Bug#1093818: Bug#1093818: uwsgi: Build ruby plugin with ruby3.3

[Antonio Terceiro]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 04:09:47PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (2025-01-23 13:30:07)
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 06:29:09 +0100 "Alexandre Rossi" <niol at zincube.net> wrote:
> > > Control: block -1 by 1079857
> > > > We are about to switch the default ruby version to 3.3 in unstable
> > > > (ruby-defaults/1:3.3~0 is in experimental already for testing), and
> > > > src:uwsgi fails to build with it:
> > > >
> > > > https://ruby-builds.debian.net/ruby3.3/21/uwsgi/uwsgi_2.0.28-1+rebuild1737418237_amd64-2025-01-21T00:10:39Z.build
> > > >
> > > > The fix is straightforward and is attached to this bug.
> > > 
> > > This is not the fix that should go in.
> > > 
> > > We have a packaging overhaul in progress that will make this easier,
> > > just needing binNMUs.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately src:uwsgi-plugin-ruby is still in the NEW queue.
> > The overhaul doesn't preclude fixing this with the attached patch. If doing 
> > that, please also change the java build for openjdk-21, see #1092756.
> > 
> > And once the plugin split in NEW goes through, then these packages from 
> > src:uwsgi can be dropped. But in the meantime, src:uwsgi needs to be updated or 
> > it will be removed from testing for the upcoming ruby3.3 transition.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion, but no.
> 
> The binary package uwsgi-plugin-rack-ruby3.1 covers Ruby 3.1, not Ruby
> 3.3, just as the binary package uwsgi-plugin-ring-openjdk-17 covers
> OpenJDK 17, not 21.
> 
> Yes, we could ignore renaming binary packages only to avoid a visit to
> NEW, but that is not heplful for our users.
> 
> What we consider helpful is to plan ahead, which is what Alexandre did
> in introducing the new packages (with unversioned binary package names
> for future sake) more than 4 months ago.  Those packages that are
> virtually empty, so ought to require as minimal as possible burden on
> the ftpmasters. It is a mystery why they have required so much time to
> process.

uwsgi has been a PITA for the Ruby maintainers. Every time we do a
transition, we need source changes.

With this new split packages design, will it be possible to just binNMU
src:uwsgi-plugin-ruby during Ruby transitions?

BTW, now that ruby3.3 has been made the default in unstable, this is
effectively blocking the Ruby transition.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-uwsgi-devel/attachments/20250125/a9bb302c/attachment.sig>