I have ruby 1.9.2 rpms

[Christopher McCrory]

Hello...

 Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2
rpms.  Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV.

http://rubyrepo.elctech.com/

feedback welcome.




-- 
Christopher McCrory
To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

[Michal Babej]

Hi,

On 05/27/11 00:40, Christopher McCrory wrote:
>  Hello...
>
>    Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2
>  rpms.  Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV.
>
>  http://rubyrepo.elctech.com/
>
>  feedback welcome.
>  
Do you have the SRPM / spec somewhere ?
Cheers,
  -- mb

[Christopher McCrory]

Hello...


On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 14:04 +0200, Michal Babej wrote:
>  Hi,
>  
>  On 05/27/11 00:40, Christopher McCrory wrote:
>  > Hello...
>  >
>  >   Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2
>  > rpms.  Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV.
>  >
>  > http://rubyrepo.elctech.com/
>  >
>  > feedback welcome.
>  >
>  
>  Do you have the SRPM / spec somewhere ? 

the src.rpms are in the same place.




>  Cheers,
>    -- mb
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig 

-- 
Christopher McCrory
To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

[Mo Morsi]

On 05/26/2011 06:40 PM, Christopher McCrory wrote:
>  Hello...
>  
>   Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2
>  rpms.  Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV.
>  
>  http://rubyrepo.elctech.com/
>  
>  feedback welcome.
>  
>  
>  
>   
Hrm just glancing at your rpms, it seems that they are meant to replace
the currently existing ruby 1.8 ones, not live along side of them correct?

  -Mo

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 1.6.2011 21:09, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
>  On 05/26/2011 06:40 PM, Christopher McCrory wrote:
> > Hello...
> >
> >   Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2
> > rpms.  Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV.
> >
> > http://rubyrepo.elctech.com/
> >
> > feedback welcome.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>  Hrm just glancing at your rpms, it seems that they are meant to replace
>  the currently existing ruby 1.8 ones, not live along side of them correct?
>
>     -Mo
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig 
This is the way how we should proceed, i.e. the 1.9.2 should become 
default. Later we can consider what to do with 1.8 ...

Vit

[Sergio Rubio]

Hey all,

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  This is the way how we should proceed, i.e. the 1.9.2 should become
>  default. Later we can consider what to do with 1.8 ...
>  
I wonder what do you guys think about the Debian approach:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2011/05/msg00105.html

Looks like a win win.

Replacing 1.8 does not mean that they cannot be installed in parallel I
guess.

It's my first email to the list. My apologies If I'm being to brave.
Greetings to all!

Rgds.



>  Vit
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>

[Chad Feller]

>      This is the way how we should proceed, i.e. the 1.9.2 should become
>      default. Later we can consider what to do with 1.8 ...
>
>
>  I wonder what do you guys think about the Debian approach:
>
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2011/05/msg00105.html
>
>  Looks like a win win.
>
>  Replacing 1.8 does not mean that they cannot be installed in parallel 
>  I guess.
>
>  It's my first email to the list. My apologies If I'm being to brave. 
>  Greetings to all!
>
>  Rgds.
>  
I have Squeeze (Debian 6.0) on a box, and have played with this.  So far 
I haven't noticed any issues with it and it works well.  Same idea as if 
you have a Mac and use MacPorts to install 1.9.  It installs with a 1.9 
suffix and as such is completely independent of the system (1.8) install.

I'd really like to see Fedora ship 1.9, at least in parallel with 1.8 as 
in the above two examples.  We can phase out 1.8 later after 1.8 
dependent programs have been migrated.

-Chad

[Christopher McCrory]

Hello...

On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 15:09 -0400, Mo Morsi wrote:
>  On 05/26/2011 06:40 PM, Christopher McCrory wrote:
>  > Hello...
>  > 
>  >  Now that I work in a ruby shop, I took some time and built ruby 1.9.2
>  > rpms.  Most of my experience with ruby is running puppet so YMMV.
>  > 
>  > http://rubyrepo.elctech.com/
>  > 
>  > feedback welcome.
>  > 
>  > 
>  > 
>  > 
>  
>  Hrm just glancing at your rpms, it seems that they are meant to replace
>  the currently existing ruby 1.8 ones, not live along side of them correct?
>   
correct.  Changing the spec file to install in parallel isn't hard.
IIRC, add --suffix=192, append 192 in a few places, and exclude
libruby.so .  But I found that either ruby without gems is not very
useful :(  One of my goals is to get a ruby 1.9.2 stack to run puppet.
So many gems are required that doing dual gem rpms is too much work for
me.

It would really help if ruby could search both 1.8 and 1.9.1 directories
for gems ala perl.




>    -Mo
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list
>  ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig 

-- 
Christopher McCrory
To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

[Michal Babej]

Hi,

On 06/02/11 23:37, Christopher McCrory wrote:
>  correct.  Changing the spec file to install in parallel isn't hard.
>  IIRC, add --suffix=192, append 192 in a few places, and exclude
>  libruby.so .  But I found that either ruby without gems is not very
>  useful :(  One of my goals is to get a ruby 1.9.2 stack to run puppet.
>  So many gems are required that doing dual gem rpms is too much work for
>  me.
>
>  It would really help if ruby could search both 1.8 and 1.9.1 directories
>  for gems ala perl. 
I don't think that can ever work for compiled (native) C
extensions. 
AFAIK they (ruby 1.8 and 1.9.1) are not ABI compatible.

  -- mb