On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:19 AM, "Akinori MUSHA" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Great! It's fantastic to see ruby 1.8 finally go. > > Now, why don't we make Ruby 2.0 the default version instead of 1.9? > > Ruby 2.0 is highly (upper) compatible with 1.9 and there should be no > reason to adopt Ruby 1.9.3 by now. Ruby 1.9 is unlikely to have any > more build/platform related change that would expand supported > platforms, architectures or compilers, so I think we should adopt Ruby > 2.0 now that FreeBSD 10 is soon to be shipped with a new compiler and > toolchain that are rapidly evolving. > > What do you guys think? Is there any essential package that does not > run on Ruby 2.0, in which case I could help? At the time we switched to ruby 1.9 there were some ports broken with 2.0 iirc. I'm not sure if the situation changed with the recent wave of 1.8 ports deprecation, though. I agree that we should go with 2.0. Given that new os x ships with 2.0 we definitely want to stay compatible with what people are going to use on OS X. The only major breakages I seen were related to encoding problems (ruby 2.0 uses utf-8 by default). Unfortunately, some of those problems only happen at runtime :-( Do we have a list of ports broken with 2.0 somewhere? -- ST4096-RIPE _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ruby To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
