On 19/01/11 at 01:05 -0700, Joshua Timberman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > Ohai! > > On Jan 18, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > >> 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). > > The current stable release of Ruby itself is 1.9(.2) - that should > absolutely be the minimum supported version of Ruby on Debian. I > hypothesize that one of the reasons that library developers have not > moved forward with 1.9 support is because the two most popular > distribution families are not shipping 1.9.x by default (Debian and > Red Hat + derivatives, clearly). > > As an upstream, Opscode does work to make sure that Chef and other > related libraries we support work on both Ruby 1.8 and 1.9. At some > point we may support other interpreters, as well.
If we (Debian): - switch to alternatives to manage the default ruby version - make sure to try to support 1.8 and 1.9 in libraries It will be very easy to switch from 1.8 as a default to 1.9. According to what I saw, we are not in a position to switch to 1.9 as a default *yet*. However, having all the infrastructure ready to do the switch, we could do the switch in a few months when the major libs/apps have proven that they work with 1.9. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
