[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ruby 2.4.0 update
From: |
Ben Woodcroft |
Subject: |
Re: Ruby 2.4.0 update |
Date: |
Thu, 5 Jan 2017 21:16:22 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 |
Hi Marius,
On 26/12/16 23:18, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
On 26/12/16 03:09, Marius Bakke wrote:
In good tradition, ruby made a new release today (25/12)[0].
I tried building some packages with the new version, but ruby-minitest
complains that Rake 12 is too new (even with the latest minitest). There
have been some core changes as well, with Fixnum and Bignum now merged
into a single Integer class.
I updated ruby-minitest to the newest version and pushed, but as you
mention the check phase requires rake <12. This actually stems from
hoe though rather than minitest, I've asked the devs about it here:
https://github.com/seattlerb/hoe/issues/77
This issue has now been fixed in hoe, in the just released 3.16.0. I
just pushed this to master after building the downstream packages
without issue as '8e941f20',.
I'm not sure that the Fixnum/Bignum changes are particularly harmful
if I'm understanding correctly, since both classes can still be used.
I can't see any possible backwards incompatibility.
Well, I suppose it isn't impossible. Shouldn't say such things.
I suggest that we keep ruby 2.3 as the main "ruby" variable until the
ecosystem catches up. Users will still get the latest version when
using `guix package` or `guix environment`. WDYT?
I would agree, but I'd hope that the hoe issue is an isolated one and
that we can make ruby-2.4 the default very soon.
What do you think about making 2.4 the default and pushing to staging,
if there are no obvious issues?
Thanks and happy travels,
ben
- Re: Ruby 2.4.0 update,
Ben Woodcroft <=