Re: Ruby in squeeze
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 09:49:51AM +0100]:
> Hi,
>
> We should decide on what we are going to ship in squeeze, regarding
> Ruby.
Hi, and excuse me -again- for my late reply.
> I think that:
> - the Ruby community is not adopting Ruby 1.9 yet, and many libraries
> are still lacking support for it. Trying to support it now would be
> premature. However, we could ship it as a "technology preview", like
> we shipped 1.9.0 in the past.
I see there is a segment of the Ruby community who is already quite
1.9-based - The über-agile pushers that have IMHO brought in quite a
bit of mayhem into Rails (although, of course, they are its core
motor). But they usually disregard our way of packaging also, thinking
only of the development speed and thinking of each delivered product
(together with its hard-versioned gems) as a finished deal...
Although, yes, many (most?) of us stick with 1.8
> - We cannot support two Ruby 1.9 versions in squeeze (1.9.0 and 1.9.1).
> We should support only the latest one.
Agree. We whould stay with 1.8 and one 1.9.x
> - Work on a new way to package Ruby libraries (new ruby policy) should
> be postponed to after squeeze. Since Ruby 1.9 is not being adopted,
> and JRuby is now in non-free, there's also less urgency to make the
> switch.
Completely agree.
> Proposed actions:
> - All packages currently build-depending or depending on Ruby 1.9.0 must
> switch to Ruby 1.9.1 or completely drop the dependency on Ruby 1.9.*.
> - ruby1.9 (providing Ruby 1.9.0) must be removed from Debian.
We should try to ensure we are ready to switch to defaulting to 1.9.x
anyway - By making sure all of our modules provide 1.8 and 1.9
versions.
> Does someone know something about the Ruby 1.9.2 plans? I've read they
> have been delayed, but I don't know the new plans. Should we try to
> release squeeze with 1.9.2 instead of 1.9.1?
I'll just point the same way others have on this same thread: If it is
released in the due period, we should strive to support it and have
the maximum possible number of modules ready for it. Otherwise, we
should just stick to 1.9.1.
--
Gunnar Wolf • gwolf@gwolf.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
Reply to: