Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:04:42 -0300 From: Santiago Pastorino <spastorino@gmail.com> To: Steve Wills <swills@freebsd.org> Cc: ruby@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ruby bsd.default-versions.mk DEFAULT_VERSION Message-ID: <CAKecwXCHe0QQWDzx8_siHziKgqXNh10cEyBE-kKgsy%2Bq0JTs9w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20150315153826.GA2814@mouf.net> References: <CAKecwXDJeUdJtECCGQ8YxnfQJKtct5swLj5b8JT0YMjTp90WUg@mail.gmail.com> <20150315153826.GA2814@mouf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Good to know, thanks for the information :). On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Steve Wills <swills@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:23:05PM -0300, Santiago Pastorino wrote: >> Hey, >> >> just out of curiosity I wonder why is 2.1 the current default >> version. I know that I can change the version by editing >> /etc/make.conf but just wondering if you already know of some pain >> points of going to 2.2 by default or why that's the current decision. >> I'm moving my machine to 2.2 and testing but I tend to think that it >> shouldn't be a major pain. > > There are still a number of ports that don't build or work with 2.2. I'd have > to test again to give you exact numbers, but it was more than a handfull of > rubygem- and ruby- ports that didn't build. Also, sysutils/puppet, which is > quite important to many users, doesn't support Ruby 2.2 yet (puppet 4.0 will). > Breaking puppet by default would be far from ideal. > > Switching to 2.2 as default locally and testing is encouraged. :) > > Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAKecwXCHe0QQWDzx8_siHziKgqXNh10cEyBE-kKgsy%2Bq0JTs9w>