+1 for 2.4. I believe currently it's beta in SCLo but I assume that
it'll be GA by the time we finish it and the RH-SCL version is already
GA.
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 11:59:43AM -0500, Eric D Helms wrote:
One thing I didn't include as part of this discussion was a discussion of
the version of Ruby to use. Currently a Ruby 2.4 and Ruby 2.3 SCL exists
from the RHSCL team within CentOS. I propose we use Ruby 2.4 given that it
is latest and greatest. This is important, since the Rails SCL will have to
depend on a Ruby SCL version.
Eric
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Eric D Helms <ericdhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Daniel Lobato Garcia <elobat...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I agree with all of that, definitely something to do in a different
repository.
Just one question, my understanding is that you prefer to do this (SCL)
because we are uncertain of the time/effort required for vendoring the
gems/npm
packages. Given that long-term we would have to keep up building SCLs
(which if I’m not wrong are going to be less used from EL8 onward) and
maintaining
packages (which consumes a great deal of our time).
To be fair, I judged this based on what the community prefers not just my
personal preference per the other thread. I do tend to still think NPM
should be vendorized given how it does not provide runtime dependencies and
only build time as well as the complex nature of how it handles packages
and dependencies (and sheer scale of packages).
Eric
Parallel to this effort, do you think it’s worth moving forward with the
vendorization of npm so that gems can follow suit?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
