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

Re: Ruby 1.9.1 package release plan [ SUMMARY ]



On 23/07/09 at 08:04 +0900, akira yamada / やまだあきら wrote:
> >>> Source package name
> >>> ruby1.9.1
> >> Why you switch source package name to "ruby1.9.1"?
> > 
> > because you need to change the source package name so that both sets of
> > packages will exist in unstable at the same time. If you re-use ruby1.9
> > with ruby1.9.1 binary package, the ruby1.9 will be removed.
> 
> I think that there are no new users of ruby1.9 (Ruby 1.9.0) packages.
> 
> When we re-use ruby1.9 for ruby1.9.x,
> binary pakcges are removed from the archive.
> But we still can keep ruby1.9 and ruby1.9.x in our system.
> 
> Should we provide some versions of Ruby 1.9 package at the same time?

My big problem with the re-use of the ruby1.9 source package is that
transitionning all packages will take time. We lack manpower in the
Debian/ruby community, and, without technical help from tools like
ruby-support, the transition is likely to take at least a month.

I don't want ruby to be in a broken state (uninstallable libs, etc) for
such a long time. Of course, users that still have 1.9.0 packages (and
prevent them from being upgraded to 1.9.1) would be fine, but if a user
upgrades it by mistake, and then discover that a library he needs is not
available with 1.9.1 yet, he will have to downgrade ruby.

That's why I really think that the only sane choice is to fully support
several ruby versions for some time, to leave more time for the
transition.

Also, note that the transition from 1.9.0 to 1.9.1 is relatively easy,
since most packages aren't available for 1.9.0 yet. But the 1.9.1->1.9.2
transition is likely to be even more painful.

Another problem is that by automatically upgrading to 1.9.1, you will
break stuff on the user's machine. Manually installed libs and gems that
were installed with 1.9.0 will no longer work with 1.9.1. That's why I
think that the switch to 1.9.1 must be made consciously by the user.

> > Ooops, it's "transition" as a verb, not as a noun.
> 
> sorry.

My fault :-)
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


Reply to: