Re: Let's discuss big changes in Ruby packaging for squeeze+1
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 3) Instead of providing several libfoo-ruby1.{8,9.1} packages, we
> provide only one when it is possible (pure ruby packages), named
> libfoo-ruby.
> When this is not possible (case of packages that contain native extensions),
> we continue to provide several binary packages libfoo-ruby1{8,9.1}.
What about 1.8-only packages? I only know of libparstree wich will
probably never be available for 1.9 [1]. Does it make sense to keep such
1.8-only packages around?
libparstree is required by libheckle which is used by rspec. My vague
plans for squeeze+1 were to drop libparstree/libheckle alltogether, if I
don't find a way to make them work with 1.9.1.
Tobias
[1] http://blog.zenspider.com/2009/04/parsetree-eol.html
Reply to: