Re: Untransitioned Ruby Packages
Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> 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
> option.
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
problem.
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
move.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: