Re: Untransitioned Ruby Packages

[Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>]

On Monday, July 09, 2012 08:08:37 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.

Makes sense.  Thanks.

Scott K