Re: Untransitioned Ruby Packages
Scott Kitterman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> OK. Thanks. I can file the RM bug for that one.
> In general though should these be forced to build with ruby 1.8 (since
> they generally have ruby1.8 in the binary name or should they be coerced
> into producing a package that works with ruby1.9, but is called ruby1.8?
> I'm assuming gong through New to fix these kinds of bugs isn't an
The Ruby policy for some time (before the recent revision) has been to
build two packages, one for 1.8 and one for 1.9.1 (which actually works
with more than 1.9.1, I think; the naming is confusing), if the package
supports both versions of Ruby (and then a metapackage that depends on the
1.8 package). For packages that only generate a 1.8 binary package, I
wonder if they even work with 1.9. If they can't that's a much larger
If they were broken in such a way as to only build packages for 1.8 even
though they could have also supported 1.9, at this late date I wonder if
it would be best to just leave them only supporting 1.8. wheezy will ship
with both 1.8 and 1.9.1, and if people have a need for that package, they
can install ruby1.8 to use it.
So, in short, I think coercing them to build with ruby1.8 is the right
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>