Ruby 1.8.2

[George Moschovitis]

Hello there,

has anyone any idea when ruby 1.8.2 is going to be released?
are there any plans to include the ruby/extensions project to
the main distribution?

-g.

 

[Gavin Sinclair]

Hello there,

has anyone any idea when ruby 1.8.2 is going to be released?

July 2004 I think

Serously, no idea (from me). It hasn't been mentioned on ruby-core
for a while.

are there any plans to include the ruby/extensions project to
the main distribution?

None mentioned, and I don't expect there will ever be. It's already
super-easy to install, thanks to RubyGems and RPA, so there's not much
point. Besides, independent release cycles are good.

Cheers,
Gavin

 

[George Moschovitis]

Super-easy is not enough I am afraid

 

[Mauricio Fernández]

Super-easy is not enough I am afraid

What else do you need? RubyGems and rpa-base can be used if you're not
root (alternative $prefix), too...

Could you explain your needs? We might be able to cover them...

 

[trans. (T. Onoma)]

None mentioned, and I don't expect there will ever be.  It's already
super-easy to install, thanks to RubyGems and RPA, so there's not much
point.  Besides, independent release cycles are good.

+1, I actually wish rdoc and yaml were gems.

T.

 

[George Moschovitis]

No I just think, that some of the ruby/extensions should be part of the
main
distribution. RubyGems are easy, but having such nice methods
automatically installed is even better

-g.

 

[Eivind Eklund]

No I just think, that some of the ruby/extensions should be part of the
main distribution. RubyGems are easy, but having such nice methods
automatically installed is even better

I'm with FreeBSD. Just as background:

We've had occasionally had fairly bad experiences with pulling
externally maintained software into a base system. The problem is
that this trigger a conflict between updating and stability, and has
led to very outdated versions being in the base (e.g, perl4 stuck
around for many years after its due date; at the moment, we have perl
5.6.1 in the base system for our 4.x branch, even though the current
version is 5.8.4 - and 5.8 has been the relevant version for about two
years.)

I'm not sure what forces are involved for Ruby just here, but just
wanted to warn that "pull it into the base system to make it available
everywhere" comes with non-obvious drawbacks. The includsion of Perl
in the FreeBSD base system created a ton of problems for people using
perl on FreeBSD, for instance.

Eivind.

 

[Nathaniel Talbott]

I'm with FreeBSD. Just as background:

We've had occasionally had fairly bad experiences with pulling
externally maintained software into a base system. The problem is
that this trigger a conflict between updating and stability, and has
led to very outdated versions being in the base (e.g, perl4 stuck
around for many years after its due date; at the moment, we have perl
5.6.1 in the base system for our 4.x branch, even though the current
version is 5.8.4 - and 5.8 has been the relevant version for about two
years.)

I'm not sure what forces are involved for Ruby just here, but just
wanted to warn that "pull it into the base system to make it available
everywhere" comes with non-obvious drawbacks. The includsion of Perl
in the FreeBSD base system created a ton of problems for people using
perl on FreeBSD, for instance.

I'll just chime in here quickly and say that test/unit development has
definitely been slowed by its inclusion in the standard ruby distro.
Now, I happen to think that a unit testing framework is one of those
things that should _definitely_ be in the standard distribution, and
that slowing changes in it might be a good thing, however it is
something to think long and hard about when wishing a library in to the
standard.


Nathaniel
Terralien, Inc.

<(><