Hello,
At Mon, 8 May 2006 14:34:49 +0200,
Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 03:24:29PM +0200, Stefan Huehner wrote:
> > at the moment there are 3 distinct ruby versions in the archive.
> >
> > - ruby1.6
> > - ruby1.8
> > - ruby1.9 (experimental)
> >
> > Is ruby1.6 needed in the archive? Or should be remaining users of
> > ruby1.6 be migrated to ruby1.8.
>
> I clearly recall a discussion about this last year. Some efforts were
> made to port some remaining stuff to a newer Ruby, but I don't remember
> what the end result/conclusion was. Akira, Funitoshi... any idea?
I think ruby1.6 should be removed soon so that ruby1.6 won't be shipped
in etch. One reason is that I'm afraid it would get more difficult
to backport fixes, especially security fixes, to ruby1.6 in future.
I'm summarizing current status of packages that depend on ruby1.6
on http://wiki.debian.org/RemoveRuby16.
If you find the error or you have more information, please let me know or
update this page.
In summary, it seems there are several packages only for ruby1.6.
libhonyaku-damashii-ruby1.6
libnet-acl-ruby1.6
rslog
aswiki
tdiary-plugin
Does anyone working to port these to ruby1.8?
I'll submit bug to these packages to port to ruby1.8 a few days later.
I suppose these package can be substituted by modules provided by
libruby1.8. Is it right or is there any misunderstanding?
If it's right, does libruby1.8 should provides lib{optparse,mutexm,csv}-ruby
and ruby-eserver for smooth upgrades?
liboptparse-ruby1.6 - optparse.rb in libruby1.8?
libmutexm-ruby1.6 - mutex_m.rb in libruby1.8?
libcsv-ruby1.6 - csv.rb in libruby1.8?
ruby-eserver - gserver.rb in libruby1.8
I'm wondering I should submit bug as well to packages that generate
both -ruby1.6 and -ruby1.8 to change generate only -ruby1.8 (or with
-ruby1.9). What do you think about it?
Regards,
Fumitoshi UKAI
Attachment:
pgpgZ73pwOEXA.pgp
Description: PGP signature