Re: MRI 2.0 preview release
On 04/11/12 at 10:51 -0600, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Jordon Bedwell <jordon@envygeeks.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Lucas Nussbaum
> > <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:
> >>> > It depends on the 'ruby compatibility version' for that release. Is it
> >>> > 1.9.1 or something else?
> >
> > 1.9.3.
>
> I also think that with Ruby finally moving to 2.0 it would be a good
> chance for Debian to finally clean up the virtual package mess that is
> Ruby, I don't literally mean it's a mess but in that 1.9.3 pulls 1.9.1
> which can lead to come confusion for some people, for example when a
> client asks me why their system says it has 1.9.1 but it reports 1.9.3
> it's a pain to have to explain that to them. I think it should at
> that point in the next release after wheezy officially be 1.9.3 and
> 2.0 each in their own package with 1.9.1 being dropped (since 1.9.3 is
> fully backwards with 1.9.1) and no more of this virtual packaging for
> Ruby, but I don't know how easy or annoying it would be for you guys
> to drop the virtual packaging on system Ruby's but I know it turns
> into a pain to explain to people why Debian has an illogical package
> name for system Ruby.
Looking at the content of your mail, it seems obvious that you don't
understand why this 'mess' is necessary. I suggest you dig into the list
archives before telling us what to do.
Lucas
Reply to: