[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Maintainer wanted for ruby

[Kessia 'even' Pinheiro]

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 <ondrej.kucera at centrum.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Johannes Held wrote:
>>
>> Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org>:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>