[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ruby19, ruby19dev, ruby19ri, ruby19sa(...)

[Philip Brown]

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Fri Apr 09 13:55:23 -0400 2010:
>
>> Errr.. and existing ruby is ruby 1.8.
>>
>> So... why are you making a new (named) set of packages like this?
>
> Lots of stuff doesn't run on 1.9 yet (modules not forward ported,
> etc).  I believe, but would need to verify that Rails still doesn't
> play nicely on 1.9.  Thus, many shops still want/need 1.8.  The 1.9
> version offers many language improvements and has a much faster vm
> engine, so it's no longer as slow.  For the foreseeable future, both
> versions will be made available.


Is ruby1.9 explicitly designed to be incompatible with 1.8?
(if so, the writers need to learn what major numbering means :-} )

If incompatibility is a bug, rather than a feature, I dont think this
is a good way for us to go.

As a side comment.. We only have a limited (under 10?) set of packages
that need ruby.
If all of our packages are fine with the newer ruby, maybe we should
just bump CSWruby, reguardless?