From owner-freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 15 23:26:48 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ruby@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD21C1065673 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:26:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from swills@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mouf.net (mouf.net [204.109.58.86]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638B78FC08 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:26:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from meatwad.mouf.net (cpe-065-190-178-041.nc.res.rr.com [65.190.178.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by mouf.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2FN1PFh069700 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:01:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from swills@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4D7FEFC5.6050203@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:01:25 -0400 From: Steve Wills User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110130 Thunderbird/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ruby@FreeBSD.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (mouf.net [204.109.58.86]); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:01:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.2 at mouf.net X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Subject: making Ruby 1.9 default X-BeenThere: freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Ruby discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:26:48 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Ruby 1.9.x has been the "current stable version" of Ruby (according to ruby-lang.org) since April 21, 2009 (at least according to my reading of the WebBack machine). It seems to me it would be really nice to get Ruby 1.9 as the default version by 9.0. Does that seem reasonable to everyone else? If so, I'd like to do some work towards making that happen. My current thoughts on what a plan would be are: * Build all ruby dependent ports - already in progress in my tinderbox * Identify ports which don't build with RUBY_VER == 1.9 * Add the usual lines to prevent them from trying to build with RUBY_VER == 1.9: .if ${RUBY_VER} == 1.9 BROKEN= does not work with ruby 1.9 .endif * Try to identify ports which don't build with 1.9 which may have an update available which will allow them to build with 1.9 and update those. I've already got some updates for the ruby-gnome stuff ready to commit. * From those that remain, determine if a fix is available or attempt to fix them. * From those that can't be fixed, determine if they are important enough to hold up switching the default. Some I've found have no home page, don't seem useful enough to keep in the tree or looks as though they are no longer maintained and will not get the changes needed to work with 1.9. * Request -exp run with RUBY_DEFAULT_VER?= 1.9 and perhaps repeat the process if anything surprising is found. Am I crazy? Barking up the wrong tree, etc? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks, Steve -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNf+/FAAoJEPXPYrMgexuh6QoH/jMcgArhx6z0/2/RfZRLTu/f GnuOusNc1DjAXnxYOPUX1C6GL5XfyxMSEFBKlH/US8j5LvejHoJ1vl/wtnfM39iV JK8cZgYpXxFa/Xvxp/5Zh0P7BE1KfPBT1UhpJNy1vxKUfccHhL9Wkp7/S1PHq0K2 XUmY44TA1CfXgs4neFDqVM/Vbg1aTQpqlvFHtw0ldv7UZgrgHzb/DqFDXYboETz7 3GZQvhbUGky91EeO5EaAqLD7pgKI5oNu/pXgxQC+YDm5kuWaCOG2qROK5j8D6pNV JTERnKkVEezrOroJn79xRdkURX4KqAGT2sy15epZS62ba+B7g1g3c+0Q8Af1BtI= =tKU2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----