Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-07 Thread Sebastien Delafond
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Sebastien Delafond * Package name: jruby1.2 Version : 1.2.0 Upstream Author : The JRuby Team * URL : http://jruby.codehaus.org/ * License : tri-license CPL/GPL/LGPL Programming Lang: Java Description : 100% pure

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-07 Thread Mike Hommey
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 12:09:56PM -0700, Sebastien Delafond wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Sebastien Delafond > > > > * Package name: jruby1.2 > Version : 1.2.0 > Upstream Author : The JRuby Team > * URL : http://jruby.codehaus.org/ > * License

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-07 Thread Sebastien Delafond
On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: > Why do we need jruby1.0, jruby1.1 and now jruby1.2 ? so multiple versions of jruby can be simultaneously installed on a system, like with python2.x, ruby1.x, etc ? Cheers, --Seb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-07 Thread Adeodato Simó
+ Sebastien Delafond (Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:08:17 -0700): > On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: > > Why do we need jruby1.0, jruby1.1 and now jruby1.2 ? > so multiple versions of jruby can be simultaneously installed on a > system, like with python2.x, ruby1.x, etc ? The question was, rather: why would

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-07 Thread Mike Hommey
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:08:17PM -0700, Sebastien Delafond wrote: > On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: > > Why do we need jruby1.0, jruby1.1 and now jruby1.2 ? > > so multiple versions of jruby can be simultaneously installed on a > system, like with python2.x, ruby1.x, etc ? While I see why it can

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-07 Thread Sebastien Delafond
On Apr/07, Adeodato Simó wrote: > The question was, rather: why would a user want to install jruby1.0 or > jruby1.1 instead of jruby1.2? What purpose does it serve having three > different versions in the archive instead of one, or two at most? jruby1.0 will indeed be removed shortly from the arch

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-07 Thread Mike Hommey
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:40:54PM -0700, Sebastien Delafond wrote: > On Apr/07, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > The question was, rather: why would a user want to install jruby1.0 or > > jruby1.1 instead of jruby1.2? What purpose does it serve having three > > different versions in the archive instead of

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-07 Thread Sebastien Delafond
On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: > While I see why it can be needed for python, I fail to see how it is > important for jruby... to have 2 versions of jruby available ? I guess so you can at least, for instance, try the new one on your existing jruby code without removing the old one, for instance ?

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-07 Thread Sebastien Delafond
On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: > But why a need for two versions at a time ? AFAICS, jruby 1.2 supports > both ruby 1.8 *and* 1.9, as jruby 1.1 does, so why would jruby 1.1 > still be needed ? As I said in my other mail, for transition reasons; backward-compatibility is something many people like t

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-07 Thread Mike Hommey
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 02:17:09PM -0700, Sebastien Delafond wrote: > On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: > > But why a need for two versions at a time ? AFAICS, jruby 1.2 supports > > both ruby 1.8 *and* 1.9, as jruby 1.1 does, so why would jruby 1.1 > > still be needed ? > > As I said in my other mail

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-07 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Sebastien Delafond dijo [Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:59:00PM -0700]: > On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: > > While I see why it can be needed for python, I fail to see how it is > > important for jruby... > > to have 2 versions of jruby available ? I guess so you can at least, for > instance, try the new

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-07 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Sebastien Delafond dijo [Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 02:17:09PM -0700]: > On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: > > But why a need for two versions at a time ? AFAICS, jruby 1.2 supports > > both ruby 1.8 *and* 1.9, as jruby 1.1 does, so why would jruby 1.1 > > still be needed ? > > As I said in my other mail, f

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-08 Thread Romain Beauxis
Le Tuesday 07 April 2009 22:59:00 Sebastien Delafond, vous avez écrit : > On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: > > While I see why it can be needed for python, I fail to see how it is > > important for jruby... > > to have 2 versions of jruby available ? I guess so you can at least, for > instance, try th

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-08 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 07/04/09 at 23:44 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Sebastien Delafond dijo [Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:59:00PM -0700]: > > On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > While I see why it can be needed for python, I fail to see how it is > > > important for jruby... > > > > to have 2 versions of jruby available

Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-08 Thread Steffen Joeris
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 05:10:12 pm Romain Beauxis wrote: > Le Tuesday 07 April 2009 22:59:00 Sebastien Delafond, vous avez écrit : > > On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > While I see why it can be needed for python, I fail to see how it is > > > important for jruby... > > > > to have 2 versions of jrub

Re: Re: Bug#522996: ITP: jruby1.2 -- 100% pure-Java implementation of Ruby

2009-04-30 Thread Ken Bloom
Steffem Joeris wrote: > On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 05:10:12 pm Romain Beauxis wrote: > > Le Tuesday 07 April 2009 22:59:00 Sebastien Delafond, vous avez écrit : > > > On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > While I see why it can be needed for python, I fail to see how it is > > > > important for jruby... >