Re: Ruby security updates

2016-01-09 Thread Mark H Weaver
Pjotr Prins writes: > Ruby 1.8.7 is still being used. For me one of the selling points of > GNU Guix is that we can retain older packages when they are still > useful. The switch from Ruby 1.8 to 1.9 was quite intrusive and not > all software made the switch (similar

Re: Ruby security updates

2016-01-09 Thread Pjotr Prins
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 03:15:04PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote: > In general though it is a shame to remove old packages, Guix seems > well suited to keeping old software usable. Is there a more useful > place for removed packages to go other than the trash? A collection > of exported profiles

Re: Ruby security updates

2016-01-08 Thread Thompson, David
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Some of our ruby versions may need security updates. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248935 > > Can someone who cares about ruby please investigate? This particular issue is definitely fixed in Ruby 2.2.4

Ruby security updates

2016-01-08 Thread Mark H Weaver
Some of our ruby versions may need security updates. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248935 Can someone who cares about ruby please investigate? Mark

Re: Ruby security updates

2016-01-08 Thread Pjotr Prins
Ruby 1.8.7 is still being used. For me one of the selling points of GNU Guix is that we can retain older packages when they are still useful. The switch from Ruby 1.8 to 1.9 was quite intrusive and not all software made the switch (similar to the python 2 to 3 switch). Some people argue that the

Re: Ruby security updates

2016-01-08 Thread Ben Woodcroft
On 09/01/16 10:15, Thompson, David wrote: On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: Some of our ruby versions may need security updates. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248935 Can someone who cares about ruby please investigate? This particular