Re: status of 1.9[.3] and wheezy

2011-10-06 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:09:18PM +0200]: > I've also tried to rebuild all packages maintained by pkg-ruby-extras > (and using gem2deb) with that version with that version. The vast > majority built fine (inc. test suites): the new failures are > ruby-builder ruby-ole ruby-rspec-

Re: status of 1.9[.3] and wheezy

2011-10-03 Thread Antonio Terceiro
Alex Young escreveu isso aí: > > While I love RVM and use it on my OS X systems, I much prefer a > > package installed Ruby interpreter. Most of my Debian/Ubuntu > > deployment is to cloud-based instances, which give me multiple cores > > and gigs of memory in 2 minutes with an API call. Waiting to

Re: status of 1.9[.3] and wheezy

2011-10-03 Thread Antonio Terceiro
Joshua Timberman escreveu isso aí: > Ohai! > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:27 AM, Alex Young wrote: > > >> I agree with making 1.9 the default, since that's what everyone who > >> works with Ruby today expects. On the other hand, I think it's premature > >> to drop 1.8 since it is still heavily used and

Re: status of 1.9[.3] and wheezy

2011-10-03 Thread Alex Young
On 03/10/11 14:38, Joshua Timberman wrote: > Ohai! > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:27 AM, Alex Young wrote: >> Does Debian Ruby have a goal of providing a first-class deployment >> platform for third-party Ruby applications? I would argue that >> it's a goal not worth chasing because the libraries mov

Re: status of 1.9[.3] and wheezy

2011-10-03 Thread Joshua Timberman
Ohai! On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:27 AM, Alex Young wrote: >> I agree with making 1.9 the default, since that's what everyone who >> works with Ruby today expects. On the other hand, I think it's premature >> to drop 1.8 since it is still heavily used and there is a lot of code >> out there that does no

Re: status of 1.9[.3] and wheezy

2011-10-03 Thread Alex Young
On 02/10/11 10:23, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí: >> So there are three things to decide. >> >> 1) should we upload that version to unstable, or to experimental? I'm >> very much inclined to upload it to unstable, since it seems better than >> 1.9.2 in many regards. > >

Re: status of 1.9[.3] and wheezy

2011-10-02 Thread Antonio Terceiro
Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí: > So there are three things to decide. > > 1) should we upload that version to unstable, or to experimental? I'm > very much inclined to upload it to unstable, since it seems better than > 1.9.2 in many regards. I think we could have it in unstable, since in theor