Takahiro Kambe <taca%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > Currently, there are three versions of Ruby on Rails on pkgsrc. > But it cost to maintain, especially for binary packages. > > And for now, most of packages can be built with Ruby on Rails 3.2 > based packages. So, I'll remove 3.0 and 3.1 support from pkgsrc before > pkgsrc-2012Q2, as soon as possible it could be. (Anyway, I have more > than 60 packages could be commitable for currnet Ruby packages before > to do so.) I don't understand ruby culture well enough to know. But if it sounds like anything anyone would want to run would run on 3.2, then removing the older ones seems sensible. If you dropped 3.0, how many packages would be lost? What about 3.0 and also 3.1? One thing to keep in mind is that pkgsrc bits are often used to run bits not from pkgsrc. So "all rails pkgs in pkgsrc are ok with 3.2" does not imply "having 3.1 is pointless". Do most ruby/rails people mock 3.1 as hopelessly old? It seems 3.2 has been out a year, so I'd guess yes. I don't mean to give an answer - just explaining how I think about this 'should we remove x' question.
Description: PGP signature