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

Re: Bug#722980: Status of ruby1.8 removal transition?



On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 11:06:27AM +0900, Satoru KURASHIKI wrote:
> hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > Our goal is to remove ruby1.8 and switch to ruby2.0 as the default,
> > > ASAP, so it would be nice if you started building extensions for 1.9.1
> > > and 2.0 (only).
> >
> > Okay, thanks.  I haven't attempted a build with Ruby 2.0 yet, and should
> > do that.  I'll do another upload within at least the next couple of weeks
> > with that change (or sooner if it becomes more urgent).
> 
> 
> I have two packages which have ruby extensions (qdbm and hyperestraier).
> It build for 1.8 and 1.9.1 for now (with old style, not using gems
> framework).
> 
> I'm considering to drop ruby bindings itself (maybe gradually) because of
> dead upstream which means they don't catch up destructive updates of ruby.
> 
> Can I simply drop them (by purging controls and filing RM bugs)?

If you drop the binary packages from the control file and upload, the
old binaries should go away automatically.

> Are there any considerations? -- I'm sure they have no rdepends.

Not having rdepends does not mean there is nobody using them.

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: