On 21/06/11 at 14:13 -0700, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí: > > > That's a question that has been popping up now and then, and probably we > > > need to reach a consensus on the Ruby team. > > > > > > 1) There is a lot of cases in which libraries were bundled together with > > > Ruby 1.8, and were dropped in Ruby 1.9. Examples: > > > > > > * test-unit: Ruby 1.9 dropped test-unit, and added minitest. minitest > > > has some compatibility with test-unit, but it does not implement > > > everything. This way some people are maintaining it as a separate > > > package: http://rubygems.org/gems/test-unit > > > * soap4r: Ruby 1.9 dropped it, and it is now being maintained as a > > > separate package: https://rubygems.org/gems/soap4r > > > But it seems that not even this is compatible with Ruby 1.9, so > > > there are forks claiming this support. > > > > > > 2) Another case is software that was not bundled with Ruby 1.8, but was > > > bundled with Ruby 1.9. Examples: > > > > > > * rubygems > > > * rake > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I see to ways to go with this: > > > > > > a) Always let the bundled version take priority. For example, with Ruby > > > 1.8 has a bundled version of foo, then the ruby-foo package only > > > installs files for Ruby 1.9 (and vice versa). > > > > > > * Pro: bundled library behaves as it does in upstream Ruby > > > * Con: bundled does not evolve much > > > > > > b) Always make the non-bundled version have priority over any bundled > > > versions. This way we would make for example the ruby-soap4r package be > > > used for both Ruby versions, even though there is a bundled version for > > > Ruby 1.8. > > > > > > * Pro: library works consistently across Ruby versions. > > > * Con: non-bundled version (potentially) behaves different than > > > bundled version. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > We have been handling case 2) with solution a). Both rubygems and rake > > > install files only for Ruby 1.8. > > > > > > AFAICT we are starting to handle case 1) now. > > > > > > AFAICT the Ruby community at large uses solution b). For example, if > > > some package depends on rake, rubygems will just install it and the > > > rubygems-installed version will take over the bundled version. Even > > > Rubygems itself can be installed from source on Ruby 1.9 and take over > > > the bundled version (and my guess is that people do that). > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm in favor of doing (b) for (1). In the most extreme case, it means > > dropping the library from the ruby1.8 source package, and (maybe) depend > > on the non-bundled version. > > > > In the case of soap4r, we ship a patched version in the ruby1.8 package, > > because soap4r shipped in ruby1.8 is unmaintained upstream. > > It would be better to switch to a maintained upstream version instead. > > What about 2), e.g. rake and rubygems? Do you think we could always > default to the non-bundled version for them as well?
It's a bit tricky. For example, rdoc 1 (shipped in Ruby 1.8) is very different from rdoc 2 & 3 (shipped in 1.9). Also, while it's easy to override libraries using the vendor_dir precedence, it's not as simple to override executables: basically, we would need to drop the executables from the interpreter, and depend on the non-bundled version. For rubygems, it's very non-trivial. Maybe that's something that should be raised on ruby-core@ to see what they think? Do you want to prepare a mail? - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
