Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 01:56:34PM +0100]:
> > > Proposed actions:
> > > - All packages currently build-depending or depending on Ruby 1.9.0 must
> > > switch to Ruby 1.9.1 or completely drop the dependency on Ruby 1.9.*.
> > > - ruby1.9 (providing Ruby 1.9.0) must be removed fr
On 20/12/09 at 18:31 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 09:49:51AM +0100]:
> > Proposed actions:
> > - All packages currently build-depending or depending on Ruby 1.9.0 must
> > switch to Ruby 1.9.1 or completely drop the dependency on Ruby 1.9.*.
> > - ruby1.9
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 09:49:51AM +0100]:
> Hi,
>
> We should decide on what we are going to ship in squeeze, regarding
> Ruby.
Hi, and excuse me -again- for my late reply.
> I think that:
> - the Ruby community is not adopting Ruby 1.9 yet, and many libraries
> are still la
On 14/12/09 at 15:34 -0500, Richard Hurt wrote:
> On 12/13/09 3:49 AM| Dec 13, 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >We should decide on what we are going to ship in squeeze, regarding
> >Ruby.
> >
> >I think that:
> >- the Ruby community is not adopting Ruby 1.9 yet, and many libraries
> > a
On 12/13/09 3:49 AM| Dec 13, 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
We should decide on what we are going to ship in squeeze, regarding
Ruby.
I think that:
- the Ruby community is not adopting Ruby 1.9 yet, and many libraries
are still lacking support for it. Trying to support it now would be
pr
Hi,
We should decide on what we are going to ship in squeeze, regarding
Ruby.
I think that:
- the Ruby community is not adopting Ruby 1.9 yet, and many libraries
are still lacking support for it. Trying to support it now would be
premature. However, we could ship it as a "technology preview",
6 matches
Mail list logo