On 29.04.2013 15:47, Klaus Kaempf wrote: > * Stephan Kulow <[email protected]> [Apr 29. 2013 10:17]: >> On 15.04.2013 15:04, Klaus Kaempf wrote: >>> * Stephan Kulow <[email protected]> [Apr 15. 2013 10:27]: >>>> >>>> We might want to discuss a strategy - I would like to replace ruby1.9 >>>> with ruby2.0 in 13.1. >>> >>> Given that 13.1 is the base for SLE12, this upgrade is a no-brainer. >> >> http://s.kulow.org/3B shows the difference between factory failures in >> d:l:r:e and ruby 2.0 default repo. Have a lot of fun. > > So there are 20-30 gems not building properly, doesn't sound too bad. > > And which of those failing gems are actually relevant ? > > What is your (as the openSUSE release guard) acceptance criteria for > Ruby 2.0 in factory ? All packages in d:l:r:e building ? > > Nah. I think of those in factory only activesupport-3_2 and passenger are broken. activesupport will hopefully fix itself with the next 3.2 update (without the broken i18n dependency) and passenger someone will hopefully be able to fix.
But I also noticed that xmlhash is not found when I tried to port build service to rails 4.0 on top of ruby 2.0, because for some reason ruby 2.0 only looks at gems/xmlhash-1.3.5/lib/xmlhash/xmlhash.so while there is only gems/xmlhash-1.3.5/ext/xmlhash/xmlhash.so in our packages. Problems like that you will face with webyast too - but I can easily setup a real factory staging project for ruby 2.0 if people are interested in fixing webyast Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
