Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 20:22:31 +0000 From: Steve Wills <swills@freebsd.org> To: Patrick <gibblertron@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ruby 2.0 Message-ID: <20140908202221.GF67217@mouf.net> In-Reply-To: <20140906193632.GC67217@mouf.net> References: <CA%2BdWbmaPBTMz3MBjq3FjDCaXVOQGKAEM3nkEXKEuXEr7B8Whyg@mail.gmail.com> <20140906193632.GC67217@mouf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 07:36:35PM +0000, Steve Wills wrote: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:04:18AM -0700, Patrick wrote: > > Are there any plans to make Ruby 2.0 (or even 2.1) the default Ruby ver= sion > > for FreeBSD? Most every Ruby developer and company I know has moved past > > 1.9, and the 1.9 default in FreeBSD makes it impossible to use the offi= cial > > pkg sources because any pkg upgrade action wants to replace ruby20 with > > ruby19. While it's probably best that each of us uses our own pkg > > repository built with something like Poudriere, it's definitely not very > > convenient given how much work is involved in setting everything up tha= t's > > needed to provided a pkg source. > >=20 > > Going from 1.9 to 2.0 is a pretty painless update. >=20 > Yes, it's something that I've been looking at. Exp-run build tests have b= een > done several times and I've been using 2.0 as default for packages I buil= d for > myself for a while, so it's really all ready to go. >=20 > There is one issue, which is the version of devel/ruby-gems. I've been to= ld by > ruby gems developers that using gem 1.8.x with ruby 2.0 isn't really supp= orted > or "sane", though I forget the details at this point. So I wanted to get = that > updated before switching the default. Maybe we should just do it without = that, > since I don't know of any specific issues or have details on potential is= sues. >=20 > Thoughts? The exp-run for making 2.0 default was done again, and only 2 issues came up and I fixed both of those. Further I haven't been able to find any issues w= ith the current version of gem in ports, though that doesn't mean they don't ex= ist of course. So, I'm thinking we should go ahead and set a date and do it. Anyone have objections to doing it October 9, 2014? Or is a month too long to wait? Steve --kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUDhADAAoJEPXPYrMgexuhiLsH/3bgflyXEOIz2dn4OS2AlbiZ h/je6TW3I0Xva1mACjbSJW/RQZYtlxO0kyyrEmlZPg2toe1Ab1T3mbbWC7+ehYBW v3IaUUUfxB2/G/NWLpbKV+u46YTASS6YT0x4vPwAQiSSq3cnjNfBJKANPXCbJZIQ hjNQJOLQCbADwqvmNlBnjY9OozN7Vb+iugBdF67uhfiTSFFetVlMpA/rTbrT5uVc L5z/rsSq3wlnc9dXlF4S/kxg1ZkEapxvj4O/ta9hGU5ID6VTnMqLdyzoU5oJL1O6 NotLE45B09bpEVEiHl7GdiCWvn40Rk5R9YhaVC1R+Iujg4UT7KLwz/BUz3uBAs4= =kPZ7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140908202221.GF67217>