[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Thoughts about jruby

On 1/09/14 8:23 AM, "tony mancill" <tmancill@debian.org> wrote:

>On 08/31/2014 02:39 PM, Potter, Tim (Cloud Services) wrote:
>> On 31 Aug 2014, at 7:38 am, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net>
>>> Source: jruby
>>> Version: 1.5.6-7
>>> Severity: serious
>>> Tags: jessie sid
>>> User: debian-qa@lists.debian.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

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.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply to: