Re: Ruby 2.4.0 update
Ben Woodcroftwrites: > Hi Marius, > > On 26/12/16 23:18, Ben Woodcroft wrote: >> On 26/12/16 03:09, Marius Bakke wrote: >>> In good tradition, ruby made a new release today (25/12)[0]. >>> >>> I tried building some packages with the new version, but ruby-minitest >>> complains that Rake 12 is too new (even with the latest minitest). There >>> have been some core changes as well, with Fixnum and Bignum now merged >>> into a single Integer class. >> I updated ruby-minitest to the newest version and pushed, but as you >> mention the check phase requires rake <12. This actually stems from >> hoe though rather than minitest, I've asked the devs about it here: >> https://github.com/seattlerb/hoe/issues/77 > This issue has now been fixed in hoe, in the just released 3.16.0. I > just pushed this to master after building the downstream packages > without issue as '8e941f20',. Cool, thanks! >>> I suggest that we keep ruby 2.3 as the main "ruby" variable until the >>> ecosystem catches up. Users will still get the latest version when >>> using `guix package` or `guix environment`. WDYT? >> I would agree, but I'd hope that the hoe issue is an isolated one and >> that we can make ruby-2.4 the default very soon. > What do you think about making 2.4 the default and pushing to staging, > if there are no obvious issues? Sounds good for the next staging cycle :-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Ruby 2.4.0 update
Hi Marius, On 26/12/16 23:18, Ben Woodcroft wrote: On 26/12/16 03:09, Marius Bakke wrote: In good tradition, ruby made a new release today (25/12)[0]. I tried building some packages with the new version, but ruby-minitest complains that Rake 12 is too new (even with the latest minitest). There have been some core changes as well, with Fixnum and Bignum now merged into a single Integer class. I updated ruby-minitest to the newest version and pushed, but as you mention the check phase requires rake <12. This actually stems from hoe though rather than minitest, I've asked the devs about it here: https://github.com/seattlerb/hoe/issues/77 This issue has now been fixed in hoe, in the just released 3.16.0. I just pushed this to master after building the downstream packages without issue as '8e941f20',. I'm not sure that the Fixnum/Bignum changes are particularly harmful if I'm understanding correctly, since both classes can still be used. I can't see any possible backwards incompatibility. Well, I suppose it isn't impossible. Shouldn't say such things. I suggest that we keep ruby 2.3 as the main "ruby" variable until the ecosystem catches up. Users will still get the latest version when using `guix package` or `guix environment`. WDYT? I would agree, but I'd hope that the hoe issue is an isolated one and that we can make ruby-2.4 the default very soon. What do you think about making 2.4 the default and pushing to staging, if there are no obvious issues? Thanks and happy travels, ben
Re: Ruby 2.4.0 update
Thanks Marius, an enjoyable xmas read of all the new features it was. On 26/12/16 03:09, Marius Bakke wrote: In good tradition, ruby made a new release today (25/12)[0]. I tried building some packages with the new version, but ruby-minitest complains that Rake 12 is too new (even with the latest minitest). There have been some core changes as well, with Fixnum and Bignum now merged into a single Integer class. I updated ruby-minitest to the newest version and pushed, but as you mention the check phase requires rake <12. This actually stems from hoe though rather than minitest, I've asked the devs about it here: https://github.com/seattlerb/hoe/issues/77 I'm not sure that the Fixnum/Bignum changes are particularly harmful if I'm understanding correctly, since both classes can still be used. I can't see any possible backwards incompatibility. I suggest that we keep ruby 2.3 as the main "ruby" variable until the ecosystem catches up. Users will still get the latest version when using `guix package` or `guix environment`. WDYT? I would agree, but I'd hope that the hoe issue is an isolated one and that we can make ruby-2.4 the default very soon. When we do such an update, I think we should make ruby inherit from ruby-2.3 as discussed previously. Also, what would you say to setting the "--jemalloc" configure flag for speed and compiling with gcc-5, both for speed? Thanks, ben.
Ruby 2.4.0 update
In good tradition, ruby made a new release today (25/12)[0]. I tried building some packages with the new version, but ruby-minitest complains that Rake 12 is too new (even with the latest minitest). There have been some core changes as well, with Fixnum and Bignum now merged into a single Integer class. I suggest that we keep ruby 2.3 as the main "ruby" variable until the ecosystem catches up. Users will still get the latest version when using `guix package` or `guix environment`. WDYT? Patch attached. Not sure about the commit message. 0: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2016/12/25/ruby-2-4-0-released/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature >From 6f029cbaedf273febef92e9c4197c55414b818d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Marius BakkeDate: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 18:07:47 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] gnu: ruby: Update to 2.4.0. * gnu/packages/ruby.scm (ruby-2.4): New variable. --- gnu/packages/ruby.scm | 14 ++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) diff --git a/gnu/packages/ruby.scm b/gnu/packages/ruby.scm index c87f8b309..dee98c236 100644 --- a/gnu/packages/ruby.scm +++ b/gnu/packages/ruby.scm @@ -100,6 +100,20 @@ a focus on simplicity and productivity.") (home-page "https://ruby-lang.org;) (license license:ruby))) +(define-public ruby-2.4 + (package (inherit ruby) + (replacement #f) + (version "2.4.0") + (source +(origin + (method url-fetch) + (uri (string-append "https://cache.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/; + (version-major+minor version) + "/ruby-" version ".tar.xz")) + (sha256 + (base32 +"141nnsdk2q83c23p5kl404id8gy1ap261gin48rbjj5sbksgx1rs")) + (define-public ruby-2.2 (package (inherit ruby) (replacement #f) -- 2.11.0