On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 12:26:10PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > There is an alternative to removing Ruby, but I don't think it's very > attractive to us. However here it is for your information ... > > We could run every Ruby API call from a single thread. We would start > a background thread (when exactly to do this is complex - more below). > The background thread would be the only one that uses RUBY_INIT_STACK.
snip > As you can see, when you get into the details this is not a very > attractive option. Therefore I think deleting the Ruby plugin is the > best plan of action for us. Given the long standing threads bug, the ruby maintainers obviously don't consider embedding of the interpretor to be a high value use case. So I think you'd be justified in dropping ruby, rather than investing lots of time in creating a workaround. If someone does spring up who desperately wants Ruby, you can pull the ruby code back in from git history, and fix the threads issue, so this isn't really tieing your hands long term. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ Libguestfs mailing list -- guestfs@lists.libguestfs.org To unsubscribe send an email to guestfs-le...@lists.libguestfs.org
