Bug#591817: Rubinius for Debian
Hi, Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí: > I think it makes sense to work closely with upstream on this package, to > get it in an appropriate shape without carrying too many patches on our > side. Sure, specially because fluent Japanese won't be a requirement for that. ;-) > Have you contacted them? The one change I did to the upstream configure script was already submitted on github against the current master. I will contact the mailing list with a list of issues sometime soon. -- Antonio Terceiro signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#591817: Rubinius for Debian
> On 05/09/11 at 22:45 -0700, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >> Today I took some time to hack on a Debian package for Rubinius >> (http://rubini.us/). I was able to reach a state in which it is works, >> but there is still *a lot* of stuff to do before having an >> archive-quality package. For example our existing pure-Ruby packages >> will not be available for the Rubinius interpreter because its >> $LOAD_PATH is very different from the $LOAD_PATH in MRI 1.8 and 1.9. Awesome, thanks for sharing the work. It might be best to stick with packaging 1.2.x for now, [1] suggests 2.0 might still be some way off. James [1] http://status.rubini.us/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#591817: Rubinius for Debian
# changing owner to register the fact that Antonio has a working package owner 591817 Antonio Terceiro thanks On 05/09/11 at 22:45 -0700, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Hello all, > > Today I took some time to hack on a Debian package for Rubinius > (http://rubini.us/). I was able to reach a state in which it is works, > but there is still *a lot* of stuff to do before having an > archive-quality package. For example our existing pure-Ruby packages > will not be available for the Rubinius interpreter because its > $LOAD_PATH is very different from the $LOAD_PATH in MRI 1.8 and 1.9. Hi, Thanks a lot for working on this (even if I agree: transitioning is the priority :P) I think it makes sense to work closely with upstream on this package, to get it in an appropriate shape without carrying too many patches on our side. Have you contacted them? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#591817: Rubinius for Debian
Hello all, Today I took some time to hack on a Debian package for Rubinius (http://rubini.us/). I was able to reach a state in which it is works, but there is still *a lot* of stuff to do before having an archive-quality package. For example our existing pure-Ruby packages will not be available for the Rubinius interpreter because its $LOAD_PATH is very different from the $LOAD_PATH in MRI 1.8 and 1.9. The sources are at http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/rubinius.git;a=summary This package contains the latest stable release (1.2.4), but I guess it makes sense to start working right away on the master branch which is supposed to be released as 2.0 in some time from now. If anyone feels like hacking on this, the TODO list is in debian/TODO. (But I would rather have people working to migrate our existing packages to the new policy ;-)) -- Antonio Terceiro signature.asc Description: Digital signature
