[putting debian-ruby@l.d.o in the loop] On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:25:27AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > Now when rails-4.0 hit sid, I would like to resume the talk on what to do > with rails in Debian. > > I propose to be much more aggressive and keep only the latest/greatest > upstream version, even if that means leaving some packages behind and not > released (we can always use backports, etc.). > > The state when we have released rails-2.3 in wheezy is very sad, and it > should not have happened. It would be better to have wheezy without redmine > (etc.) than to have rails-2.3 in wheezy. > > The opposing view would be that rails is more similar to ruby itself and we > have multiple ruby-1.8 / ruby-1.9.1 / ruby-2.0 / ... in the archive. > > Opinions? I very much agree with you wrt having a single Rails version, and think we should aim at that as our plan A. But I don't agree with even considering to ditch Redmine (and maybe other interesting Rails apps we might have for Jessie) in favor of an incompatible Rails. I would be in favor of keeping an older version of Rails as a pan B for those reverse dependencies that can't be updated in time, provided the maintainers of those reverse dependencies chime in to maintain the older Rails. VWT I think the problem with Wheezy was that the work to get rails 3 in wheezy was too late. If we had it done before, maybe we could also get a rails3-ready redmine uploaded and properly tested together with it. Are you going to be at Debconf? We could probably do Ruby and Rails BoF sessions ... -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature