Hey there,
I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not upstream.
I'm not sure what this fixes, in that ruby will build without the patch as well. I've searched through the logs to see if there's some kind of warning related to socket.c, but there is none from what I can tell.
I'd love to learn what this patch does and then try and get upstream to accept it (so that I have less work to do). Can someone on this list help me with this?
Thanks in advance,
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not upstream.
I'm not sure what this fixes, in that ruby will build without the patch as well. I've searched through the logs to see if there's some kind of warning related to socket.c, but there is none from what I can tell.
I'd love to learn what this patch does and then try and get upstream to accept it (so that I have less work to do). Can someone on this list help me with this?
For a while back in February of '08 was some breakage in glibc where NI_MAXHOST wasn't defined anymore (at least not under the usual circumstances that Fedora programs are/were compiled), thus breaking the build of many different packages, Ruby included. From the looks of that patch the Ruby developers anticipated NI_MAXHOST being undefined, but flubbed the fixup. Certainly seems like the patch should be upstream to me...
Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not upstream.
I'm not sure what this fixes, in that ruby will build without the patch as well. I've searched through the logs to see if there's some kind of warning related to socket.c, but there is none from what I can tell.
I'd love to learn what this patch does and then try and get upstream to accept it (so that I have less work to do). Can someone on this list help me with this?
For a while back in February of '08 was some breakage in glibc where NI_MAXHOST wasn't defined anymore (at least not under the usual circumstances that Fedora programs are/were compiled), thus breaking the build of many different packages, Ruby included. From the looks of that patch the Ruby developers anticipated NI_MAXHOST being undefined, but flubbed the fixup. Certainly seems like the patch should be upstream to me...
Thanks!
It turns out it is upstream already, just not in 1.8.7-p72. I feel confident to ship the patch now ;-)
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 07:11 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not upstream.
Please do not move the Ruby 1.8 package to 1.8.7. The consensus in the Ruby community is that 1.8.7 introduces unnecessary incompatibilities without really adding value. 1.8.7 is meant as a transitional package to Ruby 1.9, but the majority of Ruby users will want to keep using Ruby 1.8.6 until they switch directly to Ruby 1.9.1. You should focus on maintaining Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.9.1 in parallel. Ruby 1.8.7 should be passed over unless there is a very clear demand from Fedora users to introduce it.
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 09:33 +0100, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 07:11 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not upstream.
Please do not move the Ruby 1.8 package to 1.8.7. The consensus in the Ruby community is that 1.8.7 introduces unnecessary incompatibilities without really adding value. 1.8.7 is meant as a transitional package to Ruby 1.9, but the majority of Ruby users will want to keep using Ruby 1.8.6 until they switch directly to Ruby 1.9.1. You should focus on maintaining Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.9.1 in parallel. Ruby 1.8.7 should be passed over unless there is a very clear demand from Fedora users to introduce it.
...
I had something witty-yet-acerbic to respond with, but I think my presence alone in this thread may be enough :P
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 09:33 +0100, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 07:11 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not upstream.
Please do not move the Ruby 1.8 package to 1.8.7. The consensus in the Ruby community is that 1.8.7 introduces unnecessary incompatibilities without really adding value. 1.8.7 is meant as a transitional package to Ruby 1.9, but the majority of Ruby users will want to keep using Ruby 1.8.6 until they switch directly to Ruby 1.9.1. You should focus on maintaining Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.9.1 in parallel. Ruby 1.8.7 should be passed over unless there is a very clear demand from Fedora users to introduce it.
...
I had something witty-yet-acerbic to respond with, but I think my presence alone in this thread may be enough :P
Geh...
http://kanarip.livejournal.com/9911.html
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org