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

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Antonio Terceiro (2025-01-25 13:08:09)
> 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?

Yes, that is the one and only reason for the package split.

> BTW, now that ruby3.3 has been made the default in unstable, this is
> effectively blocking the Ruby transition.

Yes, we are aware of that.  Thanks anyway for mentioning it.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-uwsgi-devel/attachments/20250125/d6058157/attachment.sig>