(2010/04/22 22:32), Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 22/04/10 at 19:40 +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
0) We try to provide as much support as possible for all ruby interpreters
    (well, at least 1.8 and 1.9.1, but maybe also jruby). However, we decide
    on a default version (1.8 currently) that all libraries must support.

We'll release Ruby 1.9.2 in this summer.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the community will adopt it as a
replacement for ruby1.8. I hope it will be the case, of course.

So where 1.9.2 will install, /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1 or /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.2?
Note that 1.9.2 intends to have ABI compatibility to 1.9.1.

It is likely that ruby1.9.2 will replace ruby1.9.1 if it is
ABI-compatible.

2) Instead of installing to /usr/lib/ruby/1.{8,9.1}, we install to:
  /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/<= libraries that support all versions
                               of the interpreter
  /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/1.8<= libraries that only support 1.8
  /usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/1.9.1<= libraries that only support 1.9.1
That allows to make a better difference between the stdlib and the
third-party libraries.

What will you do about a gem supports 1.8 and 1.9.1 but not 1.9.2.

Since it's ABI-compatible, it shouldn't exist, no? :-)
Anyway, we have two solutions here:
- install in vendor_ruby/1.8 and vendor_ruby/1.9.1 (possibly with
   symlinks to reduce disk space)
- ignore the problem, and install it in vendor_ruby/ (similar to what is
   done for Java in Debian)

"ABI-compatible" in MRI means, extension library can link the Ruby.
It's note including Ruby level compatibility.
http://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/NEWS

Anyway though 1.9.2 is intended to be almost compatible with 1.9.1,
no one knows how 1.9.3 or later will be.
So symlink solution seems safe.

--
NARUSE, Yui  <nar...@airemix.jp>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bd05691.8070...@airemix.jp

Reply via email to