On 15/04/09 at 07:13 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí:
> > [E] Dependencies between Ruby packages:
> > Applications that use the Ruby interpreter and ruby libraries:
> >MUST choose (and be tested) with a specific Ruby version, and
> >depend on the
Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí:
> [E] Dependencies between Ruby packages:
> Applications that use the Ruby interpreter and ruby libraries:
>MUST choose (and be tested) with a specific Ruby version, and
>depend on the exact ruby version.
>MUST depend on libruby1.X for th
Hi,
This is an update of the new ruby policy, which tries to address the
various comments that were made. Main changes:
- Keep the libxxx-ruby(|xxx) naming scheme. This should make the
transition slightly easier.
- Add a section about dependencies.
Please review and comment!
It doesn't cover al
On 08/04/09 at 20:29 +0200, Michael Schutte wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 09:15:18PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Please reply to this mail, even if it's just to say "I'm OK with that".
> > I would like to avoid moving further will all this without having broad
> > agreeme
On 08/04/09 at 19:40 +0300, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> What I'm trying to figure out is a way to reduce the amount of work for
> everyone involved, not to increase it. Migration will require
> non-trivial changes to over 200 packages. Mass migration means that we
> can't wait for all maintainers to
Hey everyone,
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 09:15:18PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Please reply to this mail, even if it's just to say "I'm OK with that".
> I would like to avoid moving further will all this without having broad
> agreement that this is the way to go.
I’m in favour. :-)
> [C] Ruby
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Lucas Nussbaum
wrote:
>> How do I add JRuby support to my packages?
> Currently, you would have to also install the files into jruby's load
> path, preferably in a different binary package.
What about native libs? Do they have to have Java replacement for their
C
On 2009-04-05, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> [A] Ruby libraries must support as many as possible of the Ruby versions
> available in Debian. That currently includes Ruby 1.8, Ruby 1.9.0
> (soon 1.9.1), JRuby 1.0, and JRuby 1.1. (Should we drop JRuby 1.0?)
> ruby-support --supported lists the
On 2009-04-05, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> [B] Ruby libraries must be installed in "vendor" directories, not mixed
> with the ruby standard library. For Ruby1.8 and 1.9, that means
> using:
> ruby1.8 /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/1.8
> ruby1.9.0 /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/1.9.0
>
On 06/04/09 at 19:56 +0300, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Lucas Nussbaum
> wrote:
> >> > [A] Ruby libraries must support as many as possible of the Ruby versions
> >> > available in Debian. That currently includes Ruby 1.8, Ruby 1.9.0
> >> > (soon 1.9.1), JRub
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> > [A] Ruby libraries must support as many as possible of the Ruby versions
>> > available in Debian. That currently includes Ruby 1.8, Ruby 1.9.0
>> > (soon 1.9.1), JRuby 1.0, and JRuby 1.1. (Should we drop JRuby 1.0?)
>> > ruby-
On 06/04/09 at 06:31 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 09:15:18PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > New rules:
> > ==
> > [A] Ruby libraries must support as many as possible of the Ruby versions
> > available in Debian. That currently includes Ruby 1.8, Ruby 1.9.0
>
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 09:15:18PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> New rules:
> ==
> [A] Ruby libraries must support as many as possible of the Ruby versions
> available in Debian. That currently includes Ruby 1.8, Ruby 1.9.0
> (soon 1.9.1), JRuby 1.0, and JRuby 1.1. (Should we drop
13 matches
Mail list logo
