I think the problem isn't the Rails, but the Gems. Until I know, Rails
2.2.2 are compatible with Ruby 1.9. But some developers don't upgrade
their gems code to work with Ruby 1.9.X, so, sometimes apps will break
with a upgrade. But, it depends only from developers of used gems.
--
Kessia Pinheiro
Computer Science Student - Brazil, UFBa
Linux System Administrator
Arch Linux Trusted User
Linux User #389695
http://even.archlinux-br.org
---
X Fórum Internacional Software Livre - fisl10
24 a 27 de junho de 2009
PUCRS - Porto Alegre - Brasil
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Ondřej Kučera
Hi,
Johannes Held wrote:
Allan McRae
: I think very little in [extra] depends on ruby (needed plugins mainly), but the is quite a bit in [community]. I thought BaSh used to maintain some of them so perhaps he wants to be the maintainer. Anyway, the transition to the 1.9 series in not minor (as in plug-ins need ported) so if no-one volunteers, I will just continue with the 1.8 series until such a time as something in our repos really needs 1.9.
Allan
I did an update via abs right know and ran into some smaller problems: - Ruby 1.9.1 now includes rubygems, so I had to remove that first. - /usr/bin/rake wasn't owned by any package. - vim (compiled with --enable-rubyinterp) won't work (and compile)
However, ruby 1.9.1 is really faster than old 1.8.7.
I'll test further for some shortcomings with the new ruby.
Does anyone know what the current state of Ruby on Rails versus Ruby 1.9.x is? Because I remember there were compatibility issues and I'm pretty sure there are Archers who use Ruby on Rails (even if only for example for development). It would be unfortunate to break it for them, even if Ruby itself is better in the version 1.9.x.
Ondřej
-- Cheers, Ondřej Kučera
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.