On 29/01/14 at 22:02 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:47:27 -0300 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:49:17PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:28:43 -0300 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
[...]
one bit I forgot: we also decided that we won't
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:07:13 +0100 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 29/01/14 at 22:02 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Anyway, just to be clear: I fully understand your reasoning and I agree
that, without more Ruby maintainers, it makes sense to reduce the
number of supported major versions.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:47:27 -0300 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:49:17PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:28:43 -0300 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
[...]
one bit I forgot: we also decided that we won't support more than one
version in stable releases, so
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:49:17PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:28:43 -0300 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 05:33:58PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:33:43 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:18:46PM
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 05:33:58PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:33:43 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:18:46PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Could you please describe the chosen strategy?
[...]
we will make the following change:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:28:43 -0300 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 05:33:58PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:33:43 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:18:46PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Could you please describe the
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:18:46PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:07:09 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 07:33:09PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:52:45 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
[...]
I will do another last upload of
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:33:43 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:18:46PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Could you please describe the chosen strategy?
[...]
we will make the following change:
- librubyX.Y.Z depends on rubyX.Y.Z
- rubyX.Y.Z depends on ruby
-
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 07:33:09PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:52:45 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:48:57PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
What if both ruby1.8 and ruby1.9.1 are already installed and ruby1.8
was previously
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:07:09 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 07:33:09PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:52:45 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
[...]
I will do another last upload of ruby1.8 dropping the alternatives
entries ... :-/
Excellent,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:48:57PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:38:17 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:20:36AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
As I have already said, I think there's one last aspect to fix: ruby1.8
should remove itself
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:52:45 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:48:57PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
What if both ruby1.8 and ruby1.9.1 are already installed and ruby1.8
was previously (manually) configured as the system-wide alternative
for /usr/bin/ruby?
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:20:36AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:46:55 +0100 Ricardo Mones wrote:
[...]
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:13:43PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
You are still using ruby1.8 as system-wide default Ruby interpreter.
You should switch to
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:38:17 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:20:36AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
As I have already said, I think there's one last aspect to fix: ruby1.8
should remove itself from the list of possible alternatives
for /usr/bin/ruby.
Dear
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:46:55 +0100 Ricardo Mones wrote:
[...]
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:13:43PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
You are still using ruby1.8 as system-wide default Ruby interpreter.
You should switch to ruby1.9.1 as default interpreter.
Well, I have what it's pulled
Package: apt-listbugs
Version: 0.1.12
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Hi,
Since last update apt-listbugs doesn't allow to apt-get to install packages,
it always ends like this:
/usr/lib/ruby/vendor_ruby/debian.rb:24:in `require': no such file to load --
debian_version
Control: unblock 734233 by 734256
Control: reassign 734256 ruby1.8 1.8.7.358-9
Control: forcemerge 734256 734525
Control: reassign -1 ruby1.8 1.8.7.358-9
Control: forcemerge -1 734525
Control: affects -1 + apt-listbugs
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:52:40 +0100 Ricardo Mones wrote:
Package:
:in `require': no such file
to load -- debian_version (LoadError)
Marked as found in versions ruby1.8/1.8.7.358-9.
forcemerge -1 734525
Bug #735116 [ruby1.8] apt-listbugs: […]/debian.rb:24:in `require': no such file
to load -- debian_version (LoadError)
Bug #735116 [ruby1.8] apt-listbugs: […]/debian.rb
Hello Francesco et al,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:13:43PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[…]
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:52:40 +0100 Ricardo Mones wrote:
Package: apt-listbugs
Version: 0.1.12
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Hi,
Hello Ricardo,
thanks for
19 matches
Mail list logo
