[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-lang/ruby-cvs

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-lang/ruby-cvs

[Hans de Graaff]

dev-lang/ruby-cvs builds the latest Ruby 1.9.x version from CVS. 
Except... upstream has moved to SVN, so this ebuild no longer works. It's 
now masked and will be removed in 30 days. 

An initial ruby-svn ebuild can be found in https://bugs.gentoo.org/
show_bug.cgi?id=173817 and will hopefully be included in our CVS soon.

Hans

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-lang/ruby-cvs

[Donnie Berkholz]

Hans de Graaff wrote:
> dev-lang/ruby-cvs builds the latest Ruby 1.9.x version from CVS. 
> Except... upstream has moved to SVN, so this ebuild no longer works. It's 
> now masked and will be removed in 30 days. 
> 

Not sure there's any point to waiting the usual 30 days when the ebuild 
just can't work anymore..

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-lang/ruby-cvs

[Doug Goldstein]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 529 bytes --]

Hans de Graaff wrote:
> dev-lang/ruby-cvs builds the latest Ruby 1.9.x version from CVS. 
> Except... upstream has moved to SVN, so this ebuild no longer works. It's 
> now masked and will be removed in 30 days. 
> 

Is there any point in waiting 30 days? Since the ebuild just doesn't
work because of a VCS change, it's clear it won't work at all for anyone
no matter how much hacking they do. The 30 day rule in this case should
not apply.

-- 
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-lang/ruby-cvs

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Hans de Graaff wrote:
>   
>> dev-lang/ruby-cvs builds the latest Ruby 1.9.x version from CVS. 
>> Except... upstream has moved to SVN, so this ebuild no longer works. It's 
>> now masked and will be removed in 30 days. 
>>
>>     
>
> Is there any point in waiting 30 days? Since the ebuild just doesn't
> work because of a VCS change, it's clear it won't work at all for anyone
> no matter how much hacking they do. The 30 day rule in this case should
> not apply.
>
>   
Yes ... upstream moved to SVN right around the first of the year. If you 
want, I'll file something in bugzilla to get the details for Ruby 1.9 
into Portage as an enhancement. Most of my Rubyist friends go right to 
the source repositories anyhow, so I'm not sure it even needs to be in 
Portage at this point. 1.9 is scheduled for release around Christmas 2007.

"jRuby" should be closely tracked, however -- they will be at 1.0 in a 
few weeks, I think.

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.net/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: dev-lang/ruby-cvs

[Hans de Graaff]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:34:00 -0700, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

> Yes ... upstream moved to SVN right around the first of the year. If you
> want, I'll file something in bugzilla to get the details for Ruby 1.9
> into Portage as an enhancement. Most of my Rubyist friends go right to
> the source repositories anyhow, so I'm not sure it even needs to be in
> Portage at this point. 1.9 is scheduled for release around Christmas
> 2007.

Feel free to have a look at it. As I mentioned some work has been done 
already in bug 173817. I don't think it's currenly high priority for 
anyone in the ruby herd.

Kind regards,

Hans

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: dev-lang/ruby-cvs

[Hans de Graaff]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:49:05 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:

> Hans de Graaff wrote:
>> dev-lang/ruby-cvs builds the latest Ruby 1.9.x version from CVS.
>> Except... upstream has moved to SVN, so this ebuild no longer works.
>> It's now masked and will be removed in 30 days.
>> 
>> 
> Is there any point in waiting 30 days? Since the ebuild just doesn't
> work because of a VCS change, it's clear it won't work at all for anyone
> no matter how much hacking they do. The 30 day rule in this case should
> not apply.

I agree that in this case it's not needed, but I think it's the courteous 
thing to do and AFAIK no electrons will be unduly harmed by it. Also, it 
makes it easier for someone in the ruby team to look at the ebuild for 
reference when working on the ruby-svn ebuild.

Hans

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list