Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 22:20:41 -0700 From: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> To: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ruby port downgrade Message-ID: <0BC4EAF0-178E-4722-AFE4-3DA5C15D9989@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110825080147.29ad7a71@seibercom.net> References: <20110825064354.029bc16a@seibercom.net> <4E562E66.3030001@FreeBSD.org> <20110825073341.3c302109@seibercom.net> <CADLo83-iBY07jqHdJOi6=y-Xts15CvbKg7C5kTJ07e7mzy6gWQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110825080147.29ad7a71@seibercom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 25, 2011, at 5:01 AM, Jerry wrote: > On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:41:48 +0100 > Chris Rees articulated: > >> Where have you been? Many people had trouble upgrading, asking on >> this very list about it, then the default switch was reverted, and >> again announced on this list. >> >> Please check the archive before making more demands on Steve's time. > > Many people have problems installing/updating programs on FreeBSD and > report them here on nearly a daily basis. That is certainly not news. > There are all ready reported problems with the "libnotify and libproxy" > updates. Are you inferring that no one should update a port until it > has been verified as compatible and in proper working order or else > risk having it reverted? Isn't it the responsibility of who ever > releases said update into the ports system to verify if correctness? If > not, then there is a serious deficiency in the entire ports system > release mechanism. A problem that is becoming more and more profound > on a nearly daily basis that even a simple perusal of the daily list > messages would verify. > Hi, Jerry! You're certainly right that it's a task of maintainer that the new version won't cause any problems and will continue to work fine before upgrading. Steve Wills and a other people did a lot of work verifying that switching the default ruby version to 1.9 will have a minimal impact on FreeBSD users. This included, among other stuff, fixing ruby application to work with ruby 1.9, most notably portupgrade. However, when we turned the switch, a lot of users reported problems using ruby 1.9 we didn't anticipated in the beginning. We fixed some of them during the process, but it became obvious at that time that some work that have to be done will require a good amount of time, so we (me and swills@, who peformed the updated) decided to switch the default ruby version to 1.8 again, after 3 days ruby 1.9 being the default version. Those who are interested keeping ruby 1.9 default can still do it by using the above mentioned make.conf knob. Most of the problems reported are related to people using some applications that have not been updated to work with ruby 1.9 vm. Meanwhile, we continue to work on fixing the major issued people reported (some portupgrade glitches, ability to use the newer ruby-gems under ruby 1.9), and hopefully we'll be able to make it default again soon enough. -- ST4096-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0BC4EAF0-178E-4722-AFE4-3DA5C15D9989>