Stupid question

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Hey there,

I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first 
core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.

Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to 
ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not 
upstream.

I'm not sure what this fixes, in that ruby will build without the patch 
as well. I've searched through the logs to see if there's some kind of 
warning related to socket.c, but there is none from what I can tell.

I'd love to learn what this patch does and then try and get upstream to 
accept it (so that I have less work to do). Can someone on this list 
help me with this?

Thanks in advance,

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Jeffrey Ollie]

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip(a)kanarip.com&gt; wrote:
>  I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first
>  core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
>
>  Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to
>  ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not
>  upstream.
>
>  I'm not sure what this fixes, in that ruby will build without the patch as
>  well. I've searched through the logs to see if there's some kind of warning
>  related to socket.c, but there is none from what I can tell.
>
>  I'd love to learn what this patch does and then try and get upstream to
>  accept it (so that I have less work to do). Can someone on this list help me
>  with this? 
For a while back in February of '08 was some breakage in glibc where
NI_MAXHOST wasn't defined anymore (at least not under the usual
circumstances that Fedora programs are/were compiled), thus breaking
the build of many different packages, Ruby included.  From the looks
of that patch the Ruby developers anticipated NI_MAXHOST being
undefined, but flubbed the fixup.  Certainly seems like the patch
should be upstream to me...

-- 
Jeff Ollie

"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then
I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the
terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve
them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and
unfairness of the universe."

	-- Marcus to Franklin in Babylon 5: "A Late Delivery from Avalon"

[Uwe Kubosch]

On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 07:11 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first 
>  core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
>  
>  Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to 
>  ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not 
>  upstream. 
Please do not move the Ruby 1.8 package to 1.8.7.  The consensus in the
Ruby community is that 1.8.7 introduces unnecessary incompatibilities
without really adding value.  1.8.7 is meant as a transitional package
to Ruby 1.9, but the majority of Ruby users will want to keep using Ruby
1.8.6 until they switch directly to Ruby 1.9.1.  You should focus on
maintaining Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.9.1 in parallel.  Ruby 1.8.7 should be
passed over unless there is a very clear demand from Fedora users to
introduce it.

-- 
With kind regards,
Uwe Kubosch
Kubosch Consulting
Norway

[Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams]

On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 09:33 +0100, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
>  On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 07:11 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  > I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first 
>  > core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
>  > 
>  > Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to 
>  > ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not 
>  > upstream.
>  
>  Please do not move the Ruby 1.8 package to 1.8.7.  The consensus in the
>  Ruby community is that 1.8.7 introduces unnecessary incompatibilities
>  without really adding value.  1.8.7 is meant as a transitional package
>  to Ruby 1.9, but the majority of Ruby users will want to keep using Ruby
>  1.8.6 until they switch directly to Ruby 1.9.1.  You should focus on
>  maintaining Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.9.1 in parallel.  Ruby 1.8.7 should be
>  passed over unless there is a very clear demand from Fedora users to
>  introduce it. 
...

I had something witty-yet-acerbic to respond with, but I think my
presence alone in this thread may be enough :P

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet(a)gmail.com&gt;

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
>  On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 09:33 +0100, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 07:11 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> >> I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first 
> >> core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
> >>
> >> Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to 
> >> ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not 
> >> upstream.
> > Please do not move the Ruby 1.8 package to 1.8.7.  The consensus in the
> > Ruby community is that 1.8.7 introduces unnecessary incompatibilities
> > without really adding value.  1.8.7 is meant as a transitional package
> > to Ruby 1.9, but the majority of Ruby users will want to keep using Ruby
> > 1.8.6 until they switch directly to Ruby 1.9.1.  You should focus on
> > maintaining Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.9.1 in parallel.  Ruby 1.8.7 should be
> > passed over unless there is a very clear demand from Fedora users to
> > introduce it.
>  
>  ...
>  
>  I had something witty-yet-acerbic to respond with, but I think my
>  presence alone in this thread may be enough :P
>   
Geh...

http://kanarip.livejournal.com/9911.html

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>  On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen
> <kanarip(a)kanarip.com&gt; wrote:
> > I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first
> > core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
> >
> > Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to
> > ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not
> > upstream.
> >
> > I'm not sure what this fixes, in that ruby will build without the patch as
> > well. I've searched through the logs to see if there's some kind of warning
> > related to socket.c, but there is none from what I can tell.
> >
> > I'd love to learn what this patch does and then try and get upstream to
> > accept it (so that I have less work to do). Can someone on this list help me
> > with this?
>  
>  For a while back in February of '08 was some breakage in glibc where
>  NI_MAXHOST wasn't defined anymore (at least not under the usual
>  circumstances that Fedora programs are/were compiled), thus breaking
>  the build of many different packages, Ruby included.  From the looks
>  of that patch the Ruby developers anticipated NI_MAXHOST being
>  undefined, but flubbed the fixup.  Certainly seems like the patch
>  should be upstream to me...
>   
Thanks!

It turns out it is upstream already, just not in 1.8.7-p72. I feel 
confident to ship the patch now ;-)

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip