[Fedora-packaging] Stupid question

Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet at gmail.com
Mon Feb 2 12:09:25 UTC 2009

On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 09:33 +0100, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 07:11 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> > I've taken over the ruby package, which basically is the first 
> > core-component piece of software on my relatively small list of packages.
> > 
> > Attached is a patch that was in ruby-1.8.6, and that I rebased to 
> > ruby-1.8.7. Since it's a really simple patch, I wonder why it's not 
> > upstream.
> Please do not move the Ruby 1.8 package to 1.8.7.  The consensus in the
> Ruby community is that 1.8.7 introduces unnecessary incompatibilities
> without really adding value.  1.8.7 is meant as a transitional package
> to Ruby 1.9, but the majority of Ruby users will want to keep using Ruby
> 1.8.6 until they switch directly to Ruby 1.9.1.  You should focus on
> maintaining Ruby 1.8.6 and Ruby 1.9.1 in parallel.  Ruby 1.8.7 should be
> passed over unless there is a very clear demand from Fedora users to
> introduce it.


I had something witty-yet-acerbic to respond with, but I think my
presence alone in this thread may be enough :P

Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet at gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20090202/9afcae3a/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list