that it
is a significant effort, if not outright impossible. But it probably bears
looking at.
--
Chris Lalancette
___
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
not sure
what you are proposing, could you explain further?
--
Chris Lalancette
___
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
, in the meantime, I'll fix it locally so I can continue
testing my packages.
I actually fixed this last Friday in rawhide, but I forgot to push/build the
package. I've just done so now, so the package that is in rawhide (1.2.11-2)
should work. Let me know if it doesn't.
--
Chris Lalancette
the templates out of the code, so they are a bit more readable
now [2]. May be I should request merge to upstream, but originally I
planed to spend more time with it :)
Yeah, please do. There are already two projects out there called gem2rpm;
forking into a third is not ideal.
--
Chris Lalancette
.
To be honest, typing #!/usr/bin/ruby is hardwired into my brain, but I do think
that the #!/usr/bin/env ruby is more generic (and portable).
--
Chris Lalancette
___
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman
it.
--
Chris Lalancette
___
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
On 12/11/10 - 08:56:54AM, Gaveen Prabhasara wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Chris Lalancette clala...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/10/10 - 01:46:31PM, Michael Stahnke wrote:
I've been wondering which version of Rails we should try to put into
EPEL6. Right now, obviously, Rails 2.3.x
://isitruby19.com/ already
contains list of Ruby 1.9 in/compatible gems.
Good resource. The next step is to find out what ruby packages in Fedora are
1.9 compatible, and which ones need to be upgraded.
--
Chris Lalancette
___
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig
