From nobody Fri Oct 29 08:10:14 2021 X-Original-To: ruby@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F36181EB84 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 08:10:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HgZqB3mrxz3tPn for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 08:10:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F49613C81 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 08:10:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 19T8AEeC047327 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 08:10:14 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 19T8AE1I047326 for ruby@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 08:10:14 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ruby@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 259491] devel/ruby-gems: it should be updated to 3.1.x Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 08:10:14 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: deivid.rodriguez@riseup.net X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ruby@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Ruby discussions List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ruby List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D259491 --- Comment #4 from deivid.rodriguez@riseup.net --- I wanted to keep writing but I liked submit too early :sweat_smile: Wen Heping, yes, 3.1.5 would be better, I forgot that we had released one m= ore patch level 3.1 version hehe. Thibault Jouan, thanks so much for the context and for your work. If the upgrade to 3.1 is too hard, and there's already work going on to upgrade to 3.2, then 3.2 is also perfectly fine. While we don't test or consider the scenario of using a rubygems version older than the one shipped with each upstream ruby, we _do_ test the latest rubygems version against all rubies = we support, so that should work just fine. And it's also a much better version that 3.1 :) 3.1 is not actively maintained, we have only backported a few fixes so that they can be shipped with further 2.7.x patch level versions of ruby. But nothing other than that. It sounds like https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D258108 is quite close to being ready? That would be pretty awesome! --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=