1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.BUGS.RC

  • Bug#1103018: ruby-rmagick fails to coinstall

    From Helmut Grohne@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 13 21:00:02 2025
    Package: ruby-rmagick
    Version: 6.0.1-2+b4
    Severity: serious
    User: [email protected]
    Usertags: fileconflict

    ruby-rmagick fails to coinstall despite explicitly declaring that
    capability via Multi-Arch: same, because /usr/share/rubygems-integration/3.3.0/specifications/rmagick-6.0.1.gemspec
    is different for each architecture. I recommend dropping Multi-Arch:
    same, because there are not that many use cases that require
    coinstalling ruby extensions.

    Helmut

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bastien Roucaries@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 13 22:05:59 2025
    Le dimanche 13 avril 2025, 20:55:07 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Helmut Grohne a écrit :
    Package: ruby-rmagick
    Version: 6.0.1-2+b4
    Severity: serious
    User: [email protected]
    Usertags: fileconflict

    ruby-rmagick fails to coinstall despite explicitly declaring that
    capability via Multi-Arch: same, because /usr/share/rubygems-integration/3.3.0/specifications/rmagick-6.0.1.gemspec
    is different for each architecture. I recommend dropping Multi-Arch:
    same, because there are not that many use cases that require
    coinstalling ruby extensions.

    Can I get a diff of these files between arch ?

    They are no arch path on it.

    May be date is different ? if so it is a reproductible bug problem

    Bastien

    Helmut


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEXQGHuUCiRbrXsPVqADoaLapBCF8FAmf8GScACgkQADoaLapB CF+8uw//QBUjakGfDYaI3WngQJ4dlbOg7JvF7TXkjlfYCYs6pLNC7wL85QBf4ZwW c3iGsOnIQAAxIfcMLrDExBo9h+4BrDuwa5JM6f8pBwsiHJMQv8mF2X8s6p4XLAek LukzOrmkbY0FoaZ6G1CviMxUMBtQSa8rnkT+R6rGX6thIInoebaW/6qw+Gz84ptp B2+XtHRxTAdKuVNC2QQ7PQqdhr1Ru90zE9DVHUDKRNMPSBXQ2nNUOIGtlA2m0Q2s HJK6cfLsFKSbXHoyjsxp7linLGRek1rp06JFHXvP/Xxv++ctgPLB5z5+3PuvfJNV 0fWwCHa/v4e8Jjq2HIuP2E4HMD5rtWyuiTh1xwkwvQS2U8K4Wo5ZnMPcQpX6BvQ7 nGOovp7YZ/9RrxAQXQ/GASFJvPu/S/OHJ4pl38mlfij9e6TZbIX/IPeXtCg1Zi/p jRknNUbtW9veRFvF0yPhwc6r41BRVWx1BY//V1fv+yW/Auq2BDa+dFYWf2MdWuzZ 7YrtPAFhaFvkH7Fqv6j9BUC4nx8VhRUK3ospXGl154lS6GGTYGAZ6mXf9Zayq3od g/TyiI0QUFgmHV76QJhuE139P9VrwRnUoWlJhjWJusPR+UZhbbcWRqKI9NjqvEvj fRbazXu8usehdFeU2tV7A8obhTXse+27oG/H5HHVTGIzUgfhosI=
    =EVqi
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bastien Roucaries@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 13 22:50:03 2025
    To: [email protected] (Chris Hofstaedtler)
    Copy: [email protected] (Helmut Grohne)

    Le dimanche 13 avril 2025, 22:47:54 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Chris Hofstaedtler a écrit :
    * Bastien Roucaries <[email protected]> [250413 22:09]:
    Le dimanche 13 avril 2025, 20:55:07 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Helmut

    Grohne a écrit :
    Package: ruby-rmagick
    Version: 6.0.1-2+b4
    Severity: serious
    User: [email protected]
    Usertags: fileconflict

    ruby-rmagick fails to coinstall despite explicitly declaring that
    capability via Multi-Arch: same, because
    /usr/share/rubygems-integration/3.3.0/specifications/rmagick-6.0.1.gemspe >> c
    is different for each architecture. I recommend dropping Multi-Arch:
    same, because there are not that many use cases that require
    coinstalling ruby extensions.

    Can I get a diff of these files between arch ?

    They are no arch path on it.

    May be date is different ? if so it is a reproductible bug problem

    Indeed, there are no arch-specific things in the file, nevertheless
    this causes an M-A: same problem.

    Stuff that changes between builds appears to be (at least):

    s.date = "2025-02-12"
    s.date = "2025-04-11"
    s.date = "2025-04-13"

    This one is reproductible bug problem...
    ...

    s.rubygems_version = "3.6.3".freeze
    s.rubygems_version = "3.6.7".freeze

    This one should be asked on ruby list but I think it is a weak reproductible problem...

    Bastien

    ...


    Chris


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEXQGHuUCiRbrXsPVqADoaLapBCF8FAmf8I3sACgkQADoaLapB CF9WaQ/9FKEjToXs9OlcLMmqM3lipH54hJ/EjWwec2Qo3RJnhlc2FlKMAU4D7CTb bKY0nAnBeV5qomCn4jErY3Oeke2mFvNfd/nfFPmMYRF+LD57bFIE/SDQVtMlvLnm g2A9Ne7zdsBnNPGk9KW5U9vQQEuFf+2/A/unbjDltDCPu8RLiVob2hgioERxYWtO 7cffKf9wSG58Ft+lR8HBMmETky4PnhJPoVtvjLbG31sngG85QM7CbMKHyVYHGHSf m3dTG0fUns+qIdyLlgPjIONSh+uHh1PhkCEA3ak30K0Dr9ZGAZsj+5UViqSXwTr9 9BtFqVTGnKegXLbakZz+uacjZKrVCjPFznOnxP5Ga7n1UkGBS6wzs4UjG81hToXd 0jZHDt2MOxIBzTAEqiiD3flGup0i0fhNIYXHQiA5sJ8dogJrCIrUSIk7Pjnyg5Bp SSQ7OruhB7FiqqIxy+cHmcGhltTsa8/IN+qjs0OPxW/wjEdwa5e+2Epl+frAA2H3 YtrhpNBsi9O9gflOGSG2X8MBRETBwGxOuyn0S0dtiCMLRuDiYj8pKtONg7mBevX4 uZhFX60AhORvz4NAECnvmKtYXm/AfDAFmHVIfNwgOKnpJtUP1H5ojzRbfbB4w9hU u2gsmc7Z72IXMWsZylCaEiWARlGiNDIgNQ1kvhClnqoOzN+ZdS4=
    =TuOy
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris Hofstaedtler@21:1/5 to Bastien Roucaries on Mon Apr 21 12:10:01 2025
    On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 10:50:03PM +0200, Bastien Roucaries wrote:
    Le dimanche 13 avril 2025, 22:47:54 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Chris Hofstaedtler a écrit :
    * Bastien Roucaries <[email protected]> [250413 22:09]:
    Le dimanche 13 avril 2025, 20:55:07 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Helmut

    Grohne a écrit :
    Package: ruby-rmagick
    Version: 6.0.1-2+b4
    Severity: serious
    User: [email protected]
    Usertags: fileconflict

    ruby-rmagick fails to coinstall despite explicitly declaring that
    capability via Multi-Arch: same, because
    /usr/share/rubygems-integration/3.3.0/specifications/rmagick-6.0.1.gemspe
    c
    is different for each architecture. I recommend dropping Multi-Arch:
    same, because there are not that many use cases that require
    coinstalling ruby extensions.

    Can I get a diff of these files between arch ?

    They are no arch path on it.

    May be date is different ? if so it is a reproductible bug problem

    Indeed, there are no arch-specific things in the file, nevertheless
    this causes an M-A: same problem.

    Stuff that changes between builds appears to be (at least):
    ...
    This one is reproductible bug problem...
    ...
    This one should be asked on ruby list but I think it is a weak reproductible problem...

    I assume you're going to do something about it, in ruby-rmagick. Right?

    Chris

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bastien Roucaries@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 21 12:42:05 2025
    Copy: [email protected] (Helmut Grohne)

    Le lundi 21 avril 2025, 12:03:52 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Chris Hofstaedtler a écrit :
    On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 10:50:03PM +0200, Bastien Roucaries wrote:
    Le dimanche 13 avril 2025, 22:47:54 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Chris

    Hofstaedtler a écrit :
    * Bastien Roucaries <[email protected]> [250413 22:09]:
    Le dimanche 13 avril 2025, 20:55:07 heure d’été d’Europe centrale >Helmut

    Grohne a écrit :
    Package: ruby-rmagick
    Version: 6.0.1-2+b4
    Severity: serious
    User: [email protected]
    Usertags: fileconflict

    ruby-rmagick fails to coinstall despite explicitly declaring that
    capability via Multi-Arch: same, because
    /usr/share/rubygems-integration/3.3.0/specifications/rmagick-6.0.1.ge >> mspe
    c
    is different for each architecture. I recommend dropping Multi-Arch: >> same, because there are not that many use cases that require
    coinstalling ruby extensions.

    Can I get a diff of these files between arch ?

    They are no arch path on it.

    May be date is different ? if so it is a reproductible bug problem

    Indeed, there are no arch-specific things in the file, nevertheless
    this causes an M-A: same problem.

    Stuff that changes between builds appears to be (at least):
    ...

    This one is reproductible bug problem...

    ...

    This one should be asked on ruby list but I think it is a weak reproductible problem...

    I assume you're going to do something about it, in ruby-rmagick. Right?

    Yes but maybe in ruby itself...

    Do not know that is the best approach

    Bastien

    Chris


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEXQGHuUCiRbrXsPVqADoaLapBCF8FAmgGIP0ACgkQADoaLapB CF8RMg/7BCxUiE1Jk0pXEW02BaLOdRd0iWVi3TVo+3TMpQhDuQP3pJ6Za+3Xk0vH i+fVlQup6gsH4IFFqgRmZDJEAmABzS27tQLawz/Di1+7U/x2NxmPPwlj/lO9ZgPZ mGYsGEuHJ6WzC9cmmiKeAcOYlvW4S5HMFSLxwJgopJNaitlcDL9cdLGNBGAuwRP2 tnEy44x63WKpIDcdizOl88h/ezrseGkAsOplNBzdmUvES4cWSPRAjksgHdo9iUha CGS4O3Szpg0d4Kwfj/OwIX2o/H/xOcPmgVvaurt+28pWdbnXhvDuEE3u4IhvEmUb NOflk7c9Isa5ruv4BGKvTuabvaUm26OGAUqZPuE443qm46LlC0p8GB9SxyWDUHsu ThC/7o+qeqxSVDPmRXOYn+RCMzva9wfR5p8OH0sX0EM/49g6UGf1XKVa2Ewn9D9D C09NNWnhgm72Af3L7I67A2NgzJGsKKyco59NIA3zAtLe9e34OyyIFJ5GpeMEefAm VuQwJq8HD6KLoyL9ps/YTwroqYzLOg/tPGdw8ayEkfVc6/x32ExiLSwmkqx6d7mn x8l7nPB1AobCbh3p3LvrefFFdG5/aTeCjKV1RJF2DWivxSocZFoyAxr4b6w6CQ9p 50U7D2m1ZCymWPEpgcwNQeMS7rBDoWP/b7vojRq30Q2L6mLkAgU=
    =gvcx
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Debian Bug Tracking System@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 24 00:40:01 2025
    Processing control commands:

    tag -1 pending
    Bug #1103018 [ruby-rmagick] ruby-rmagick fails to coinstall
    Added tag(s) pending.

    --
    1103018: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1103018
    Debian Bug Tracking System
    Contact [email protected] with problems

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Antonio Terceiro@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 24 00:40:02 2025
    Control: tag -1 pending

    Hello,

    Bug #1103018 in ruby-rmagick reported by you has been fixed in the
    Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
    message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:

    https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-rmagick/-/commit/e715734c71543d73ecf25713cac249d3e556f756

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------ debian/rules: switch to Rubygems installation layout

    Closes: #1103018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (this message was generated automatically)
    --
    Greetings

    https://bugs.debian.org/1103018

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Debian Bug Tracking System@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 24 00:40:02 2025
    This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

    Your message dated Wed, 23 Apr 2025 22:34:26 +0000
    with message-id <[email protected]>
    and subject line Bug#1103018: fixed in ruby-rmagick 6.0.1-3
    has caused the Debian Bug report #1103018,
    regarding ruby-rmagick fails to coinstall
    to be marked as done.

    This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
    If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
    Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

    (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
    message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
    immediately.)


    --
    1103018: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1103018
    Debian Bug Tracking System
    Contact [email protected] with problems

    Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Apr 2025 18:55:36 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
    (2021-04-09) on buxtehude.debian.org
    X-Spam-Level:
    X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.2 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,
    BODY_INCLUDES_PACKAGE,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,
    DKIM_VALID_EF,HAS_PACKAGE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=ham
    autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 12; hammy, 91; neutral, 29; spammy, 0.
    spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--H*F:U*helmut,
    0.000-+--H*F:D*subdivi.de, 0.000-+--H*RU:sk:helmut@,
    0.000-+--H*rp:U*helmut, 0.000-+--H*rp:D*subdivi.de
    Return-path: <[email protected]>
    Received: from isilmar-4.linta.de ([136.243.71.142]:58138)
    by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256)