Hello...
Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2 rpms. Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV.
feedback welcome.
Hi,
On 05/27/11 00:40, Christopher McCrory wrote:
Hello...
Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2 rpms. Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV.
feedback welcome.
Do you have the SRPM / spec somewhere ? Cheers, -- mb
Hello...
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 14:04 +0200, Michal Babej wrote:
Hi,
On 05/27/11 00:40, Christopher McCrory wrote:
Hello...
Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2 rpms. Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV.
feedback welcome.
Do you have the SRPM / spec somewhere ?
the src.rpms are in the same place.
Cheers, -- mb _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
On 05/26/2011 06:40 PM, Christopher McCrory wrote:
Hello...
Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2 rpms. Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV.
feedback welcome.
Hrm just glancing at your rpms, it seems that they are meant to replace the currently existing ruby 1.8 ones, not live along side of them correct?
-Mo
Dne 1.6.2011 21:09, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 05/26/2011 06:40 PM, Christopher McCrory wrote:
Hello...
Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2 rpms. Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV.
feedback welcome.
Hrm just glancing at your rpms, it seems that they are meant to replace the currently existing ruby 1.8 ones, not live along side of them correct?
-Mo _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
This is the way how we should proceed, i.e. the 1.9.2 should become default. Later we can consider what to do with 1.8 ...
Vit
Hey all,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com wrote:
This is the way how we should proceed, i.e. the 1.9.2 should become default. Later we can consider what to do with 1.8 ...
I wonder what do you guys think about the Debian approach:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2011/05/msg00105.html
Looks like a win win.
Replacing 1.8 does not mean that they cannot be installed in parallel I guess.
It's my first email to the list. My apologies If I'm being to brave. Greetings to all!
Rgds.
Vit _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
This is the way how we should proceed, i.e. the 1.9.2 should become default. Later we can consider what to do with 1.8 ...
I wonder what do you guys think about the Debian approach:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2011/05/msg00105.html
Looks like a win win.
Replacing 1.8 does not mean that they cannot be installed in parallel I guess.
It's my first email to the list. My apologies If I'm being to brave. Greetings to all!
Rgds.
I have Squeeze (Debian 6.0) on a box, and have played with this. So far I haven't noticed any issues with it and it works well. Same idea as if you have a Mac and use MacPorts to install 1.9. It installs with a 1.9 suffix and as such is completely independent of the system (1.8) install.
I'd really like to see Fedora ship 1.9, at least in parallel with 1.8 as in the above two examples. We can phase out 1.8 later after 1.8 dependent programs have been migrated.
-Chad
Hello...
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 15:09 -0400, Mo Morsi wrote:
On 05/26/2011 06:40 PM, Christopher McCrory wrote:
Hello...
Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2 rpms. Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV.
feedback welcome.
Hrm just glancing at your rpms, it seems that they are meant to replace the currently existing ruby 1.8 ones, not live along side of them correct?
correct. Changing the spec file to install in parallel isn't hard. IIRC, add --suffix=192, append 192 in a few places, and exclude libruby.so . But I found that either ruby without gems is not very useful :( One of my goals is to get a ruby 1.9.2 stack to run puppet. So many gems are required that doing dual gem rpms is too much work for me.
It would really help if ruby could search both 1.8 and 1.9.1 directories for gems ala perl.
-Mo _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Hi,
On 06/02/11 23:37, Christopher McCrory wrote:
correct. Changing the spec file to install in parallel isn't hard. IIRC, add --suffix=192, append 192 in a few places, and exclude libruby.so . But I found that either ruby without gems is not very useful :( One of my goals is to get a ruby 1.9.2 stack to run puppet. So many gems are required that doing dual gem rpms is too much work for me.
It would really help if ruby could search both 1.8 and 1.9.1 directories for gems ala perl.
I don't think that can ever work for compiled (native) C extensions. AFAIK they (ruby 1.8 and 1.9.1) are not ABI compatible.
-- mb
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org