On 1/09/14 8:23 AM, "tony mancill" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >On 08/31/2014 02:39 PM, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) wrote: >> On 31 Aug 2014, at 7:38 am, Lucas Nussbaum <email@example.com> >>wrote: >> >>> Source: jruby >>> Version: 1.5.6-7 >>> Severity: serious >>> Tags: jessie sid >>> User: firstname.lastname@example.org >>> Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20140830 qa-ftbfs >>> Justification: FTBFS on amd64 >> >> This is a timely email as I¹ve been looking at the possibility of >>packaging the latest very of jruby. The archive version is 1.5 and the >>latest is 1.7, but with a maven (3?) based build system and the >>associated problems with that. >> >> Are there any thoughts in the community about jruby packaging or jruby >>in general? > >Hi Tim, > >I was looking into the same - that is, packaging 1.7, in time for jessie >if possible. > >(And this may be less work than ironing out the issue with the >deprecated apt ant task anyway...) > >If you have work/interest in this area, we could coordinate via a branch >in the packaging repo. OK. I'll start looking at it today. Some interesting Java and Ruby policy issues might pop up though as JRuby distributes runtimes compatible with 1.8, 1.9 and 2.0 but jessie will only have CRuby 2.1. Also had fun trying to build a gem with Java native extensions (http_parser.rb) and complying with the one-package-per-platform rule. Interesting times ahead... Tim Potter Cloud Systems Engineer HP Cloud Services email@example.com M +61 419 749 832 Hewlett-Packard Australia Pty Ltd This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorised to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature