Hi,
Johannes Held wrote:
Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
I think very little in [extra] depends on ruby (needed plugins mainly),
but the is quite a bit in [community]. I thought BaSh used to maintain
some of them so perhaps he wants to be the maintainer. Anyway, the
transition to the 1.9 series in not minor (as in plug-ins need ported)
so if no-one volunteers, I will just continue with the 1.8 series until
such a time as something in our repos really needs 1.9.
Allan
I did an update via abs right know and ran into some smaller problems:
- Ruby 1.9.1 now includes rubygems, so I had to remove that first.
- /usr/bin/rake wasn't owned by any package.
- vim (compiled with --enable-rubyinterp) won't work (and compile)
However, ruby 1.9.1 is really faster than old 1.8.7.
I'll test further for some shortcomings with the new ruby.
Does anyone know what the current state of Ruby on Rails versus Ruby
1.9.x is? Because I remember there were compatibility issues and I'm
pretty sure there are Archers who use Ruby on Rails (even if only for
example for development). It would be unfortunate to break it for them,
even if Ruby itself is better in the version 1.9.x.
Ondřej
--
Cheers,
Ondřej Kučera
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
