Ruby 2.0 in F19

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> According to Ruby 2.0 release schedule:
>
>   - code freeze: 23 Dec.
>   - 2.0.0-rc1 release: 1W Jan. (expected)
>   - 2.0.0-rc2 release: 1W Feb. (expected)
>   - 2.0.0-p0 release: 24 Feb.
>
> the official release date is quickly approaching. Therefore, I would like to
> update you about current plans for Fedora
>
> * I am trying to closely track recent development of Ruby 2.0 and the .spec
> is available in ruby-2.0 branch of dist-git repo [1].
> * I started to put together pieces of feature proposal for Ruby 2.0 in F19
> [2].
> * Every package which depends on Ruby will need to be rebuild. There are
> several reasons:
>   - The Ruby 2.0 is ABI incompatible with Ruby 1.9.3 (although it should be
> source level compatible).
>   - Due to better integration of JRuby into Fedora [3], we would like to
> take this opportunity to restructure RubyGems folder
>     layout. This should allow us to support Rubinius in the future as well.
>   - I would like to get rid of ruby(abi) virtual provide, since it does not
> express enough the level of compatibility
>     between JRuby and MRI. There is ongoing discussion about it on packaging
> list [4].
>
> So at the beginning of January, I'd like to ask rel-eng for dedicated build
> target for rebuild of Ruby packages (we will probably use this target for
> JRuby build as well). Please let me know if you want to opt-out and rebuild
> your packages by yourself.
>
>
> Vít
>
>
>
>
> [1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ruby.git/tree/?id=ruby-2.0
> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ruby_2.0.0
> [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/JRuby_1.7.1
> [4]
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-December/008798.html
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Sigh ... now there are *three* incompatible Ruby syntax / semantics
"standards" to deal with. Why don't we just ship 'rvm' or 'rbenv' and
force everyone to manage their own Ruby environments? ;-)


-- 
Twitter: http://twitter.com/znmeb; Computational Journalism Publishers
Workbench: http://znmeb.github.com/Computational-Journalism-Publishers-Workbench/

How the Hell can the lion sleep with all those people singing "A weem
oh way!" at the top of their lungs?