On 31/08/10 at 09:25 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Daigo Moriwaki wrote: > > > Thank you all for the invaluable comments. > > > > We, the Debian Ruby packagers, have decided to make a change on this issue. > > > > As of Ruby 1.9.2, we are merging the rubygems1.9.1 package into the new > > ruby1.9.1 (1.9.2.0-1) package since the upstream seems to have integrated > > Rubygems with the core more tightly[1]. You will no longer install > > rubygems1.9.1 > > as a separate package. > > > > The ruby1.8 package is another story. We will not make significant changes > > on > > ruby1.8 since ruby1.9.1 is (hopefully) getting into the main stream and we'd > > like to make more efforts on ruby1.9.1 > > > > This seems like an excellent and well thought out solution to this > bug report in general, and also to future maintainability of rubygems. > > I actually think its also a nice way of gracefully declining to > change long established behavior in rubygems for 1.8. Users now > have a very clear line they can draw in the sand, and another reason > to move forward with the new version of ruby.
Well, I don't think that the behaviour of rubygems for ruby 1.8 and 1.9.X should be different. It would be great to make the change for both versions in squeeze. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
