On 18/01/11 at 12:32 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 08:25:33AM +0100]: > > 5) Something I forgot to add is "dependencies on ruby interpreters". > > With gem2deb, we will get a single ruby-foo package that is supposed to > > work with all Ruby implementations (ruby1.8, ruby1.9.1, jruby, > > rubinius). > > > > I think that this ruby-foo package should depend on a "ruby-interpreter" > > virtual package, so that all users can install the ruby interpreter of > > their choice. > > And that each ruby interpreter should provide "ruby-interpreter". > > Additionally, we should move to using alternatives to select the ruby > > implementation. After that: > > - applications willing to force the use of ruby1.8 should use > > /usr/bin/ruby1.8 in shebang > > - applications willing to use the selected ruby implementation (whatever > > it is) should use /usr/bin/ruby > > How is the compatibility between implementations right now? If a > package works across interpreters (it should be human-tested! Maybe > running its test suite with the different available interpreters would > do, although I don't want to do it for every uploaded package...),
Why wouldn't you want to do it with every available interpreter? That's what is implemented in gem2deb currently. > it > can depend on ruby-interpreter. If it breaks, say, under jruby, it > could depend on ruby-traditional | rubinius. It would be a win and > would as you said, encourage advance and homogeneization of the > implementations. Well, if we use alternatives to select the ruby interpreter, a complex dependency scheme doesn't bring us anything, since it would still be possible for the users to shoot themselves in the foot. > > The default ruby version should still be 1.8 at least for some time, > > given that most libraries are not supporting 1.9 yet. > > Hmm... given that we would probably target now+2yr for Wheezy, and > given that Ruby devs are already talking about 1.9 as the stable > branch (with 1.8 as the maintenance branch), maybe we should think > about moving to default 1.9. Packages would still be built for 1.8, > but this would encourage us to push any incompatibilities to be fixed > (at or in colaboration with the upstream authors). > > In my case -and again, this speaks of sloppy maintainership- I have > several libraries built for 1.8 and not 1.9 because it was not > supported when I first prepared the packages... But that are possibly > compatible today. And if they are not, maybe we should start bugging > the authors. After what I've seen when working on gem2deb, I don't think that the situation is much better now. But I think that Debian could play a big role as a "sanitizer" for the Ruby community. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
