Re: Ruby 2.0
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 07:36:35PM +, Steve Wills wrote: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:04:18AM -0700, Patrick wrote: > > Are there any plans to make Ruby 2.0 (or even 2.1) the default Ruby version > > for FreeBSD? Most every Ruby developer and company I know has moved past > > 1.9, and the 1.9 default in FreeBSD makes it impossible to use the official > > pkg sources because any pkg upgrade action wants to replace ruby20 with > > ruby19. While it's probably best that each of us uses our own pkg > > repository built with something like Poudriere, it's definitely not very > > convenient given how much work is involved in setting everything up that's > > needed to provided a pkg source. > > > > Going from 1.9 to 2.0 is a pretty painless update. > > Yes, it's something that I've been looking at. Exp-run build tests have been > done several times and I've been using 2.0 as default for packages I build for > myself for a while, so it's really all ready to go. > > There is one issue, which is the version of devel/ruby-gems. I've been told by > ruby gems developers that using gem 1.8.x with ruby 2.0 isn't really supported > or "sane", though I forget the details at this point. So I wanted to get that > updated before switching the default. Maybe we should just do it without that, > since I don't know of any specific issues or have details on potential issues. > > Thoughts? The exp-run for making 2.0 default was done again, and only 2 issues came up and I fixed both of those. Further I haven't been able to find any issues with the current version of gem in ports, though that doesn't mean they don't exist of course. So, I'm thinking we should go ahead and set a date and do it. Anyone have objections to doing it October 9, 2014? Or is a month too long to wait? Steve pgpWDaLkfya9H.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ruby 2.0
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Steve Wills wrote: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:04:18AM -0700, Patrick wrote: > > Are there any plans to make Ruby 2.0 (or even 2.1) the default Ruby > version > > for FreeBSD? Most every Ruby developer and company I know has moved past > > 1.9, and the 1.9 default in FreeBSD makes it impossible to use the > official > > pkg sources because any pkg upgrade action wants to replace ruby20 with > > ruby19. While it's probably best that each of us uses our own pkg > > repository built with something like Poudriere, it's definitely not very > > convenient given how much work is involved in setting everything up > that's > > needed to provided a pkg source. > > > > Going from 1.9 to 2.0 is a pretty painless update. > > Yes, it's something that I've been looking at. Exp-run build tests have > been > done several times and I've been using 2.0 as default for packages I build > for > myself for a while, so it's really all ready to go. > > There is one issue, which is the version of devel/ruby-gems. I've been > told by > ruby gems developers that using gem 1.8.x with ruby 2.0 isn't really > supported > or "sane", though I forget the details at this point. So I wanted to get > that > updated before switching the default. Maybe we should just do it without > that, > since I don't know of any specific issues or have details on potential > issues. > > Thoughts? > > Steve > There could be issues working with newer gems: https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/633 Though it's easy enough to update with `gem update --system`... Would holding it back just be a testing/effort issue, or are there compatibility issues with ruby 1.9? Patrick ___ freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ruby To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ruby-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Ruby 2.0
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Steve Wills wrote: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 07:36:35PM +, Steve Wills wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:04:18AM -0700, Patrick wrote: > > > Are there any plans to make Ruby 2.0 (or even 2.1) the default Ruby > version > > > for FreeBSD? Most every Ruby developer and company I know has moved > past > > > 1.9, and the 1.9 default in FreeBSD makes it impossible to use the > official > > > pkg sources because any pkg upgrade action wants to replace ruby20 with > > > ruby19. While it's probably best that each of us uses our own pkg > > > repository built with something like Poudriere, it's definitely not > very > > > convenient given how much work is involved in setting everything up > that's > > > needed to provided a pkg source. > > > > > > Going from 1.9 to 2.0 is a pretty painless update. > > > > Yes, it's something that I've been looking at. Exp-run build tests have > been > > done several times and I've been using 2.0 as default for packages I > build for > > myself for a while, so it's really all ready to go. > > > > There is one issue, which is the version of devel/ruby-gems. I've been > told by > > ruby gems developers that using gem 1.8.x with ruby 2.0 isn't really > supported > > or "sane", though I forget the details at this point. So I wanted to get > that > > updated before switching the default. Maybe we should just do it without > that, > > since I don't know of any specific issues or have details on potential > issues. > > > > Thoughts? > > The exp-run for making 2.0 default was done again, and only 2 issues came > up > and I fixed both of those. Further I haven't been able to find any issues > with > the current version of gem in ports, though that doesn't mean they don't > exist > of course. > > So, I'm thinking we should go ahead and set a date and do it. Anyone have > objections to doing it October 9, 2014? Or is a month too long to wait? > > Steve > My reasons are perhaps selfish, but I'd say the sooner, the better. :) I've been using lang/ruby20 for quite some time without any issues (save for pkg-ng wanting to downgrade to ruby19 all of the time). That said, October 9, 2014 isn't that far away, and it's not going to have a huge impact either way. ___ freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ruby To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ruby-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
