[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Spring clean up for Ruby on Rails.
In message <rmi8v74q6wj.fsf%fnord.ir.bbn.com@localhost>
on Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:18:52 -0500,
Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
> 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?
Here is a brief sumary of removing targets:
There are a few packages could be removed (used by only above packages.)
> 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".
As for Ruby's extensions/libraries distributed from rubygems.org, they
could be installed manually with gem command.
> 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.
Rails 3.0 Security fix only.
Rails 3.1 Supported.
AFAIU, difference between 3.1 and 3.2 isn't too much. But depending
packages, for example, conflicting www/ruby-rack12, www/ruby-rack13
and www/ruby-rack are problem. So, I basically support only one
version of Rails except some migration period.
> I don't mean to give an answer - just explaining how I think about this
> 'should we remove x' question.
I really thanks for your advise.
Takahiro Kambe <taca%back-street.net@localhost>
Main Index |
Thread Index |