On Monday, July 09, 2012 08:08:37 PM Russ Allbery wrote: > Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > > OK. Thanks. I can file the RM bug for that one. > > > > In general though should these be forced to build with ruby 1.8 (since > > they generally have ruby1.8 in the binary name or should they be coerced > > into producing a package that works with ruby1.9, but is called ruby1.8? > > I'm assuming gong through New to fix these kinds of bugs isn't an > > option. > > The Ruby policy for some time (before the recent revision) has been to > build two packages, one for 1.8 and one for 1.9.1 (which actually works > with more than 1.9.1, I think; the naming is confusing), if the package > supports both versions of Ruby (and then a metapackage that depends on the > 1.8 package). For packages that only generate a 1.8 binary package, I > wonder if they even work with 1.9. If they can't that's a much larger > problem. > > If they were broken in such a way as to only build packages for 1.8 even > though they could have also supported 1.9, at this late date I wonder if > it would be best to just leave them only supporting 1.8. wheezy will ship > with both 1.8 and 1.9.1, and if people have a need for that package, they > can install ruby1.8 to use it. > > So, in short, I think coercing them to build with ruby1.8 is the right > move.
Makes sense. Thanks. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1384804.QMIY1DSZyc@scott-latitude-e6320
