[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Retirement of Ruby 1.8.7
In message <rmiegpbednf.fsf%fnord.ir.bbn.com@localhost>
on Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:34:44 -0500,
Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
> As the usual objector, can you explain the situation more?
Thank you for your questions.
> - Is the presence of ruby 1.8 causing actual problems?
Many ruby packages (especially rubygem based) drop Ruby 1.8 support
and those pacakges would need to set RUBY_VERSION_SUPPORTED explicitly.
> - Is it no longer getting security patches?
No. It was EOL 30th Jun, 2013.
> - How long has it been since it's been unreasonable for a package not
> to work with newer ruby than 1.8?
Above EOL date would be its answer.
> - It seems amarok-kde3 is an old version of amarok.
Yes, it is old and it looks not maintained (from KDE's site).
> Do you think there are any users?
I do not know and I'm not MAINTAINER and I did not import it.
> Is it reasonable to be using it (is it still getting
> security patches)?
I do not know it is really work or not now.
> - Would amarok-kde3 be a candidate for deletion in its own right?
> Really my point is "I want to remove X, so therefore Y should go" is
> uncomfortable logic. Instead I think we should say "X is crufty and
> probably should go. Y dpeends on it. So what is the situation for Y --
> upstream maintenance, users, etc -- and evaluate Y in its own right.."
I should write as latter...
Takahiro Kambe <taca%NetBSD.org@localhost>/<taca%back-street.net@localhost>
Main Index |
Thread Index |