[DRE-maint] rails pkg

[Antonio Terceiro]

[putting debian-ruby at l.d.o in the loop]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:25:27AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Now when rails-4.0 hit sid, I would like to resume the talk on what to do
> with rails in Debian.
> 
> I propose to be much more aggressive and keep only the latest/greatest
> upstream version, even if that means leaving some packages behind and not
> released (we can always use backports, etc.).
>
> The state when we have released rails-2.3 in wheezy is very sad, and it
> should not have happened. It would be better to have wheezy without redmine
> (etc.) than to have rails-2.3 in wheezy.
>
> The opposing view would be that rails is more similar to ruby itself and we
> have multiple ruby-1.8 / ruby-1.9.1 / ruby-2.0 / ... in the archive.
> 
> Opinions?

I very much agree with you wrt having a single Rails version, and think
we should aim at that as our plan A.

But I don't agree with even considering to ditch Redmine (and maybe
other interesting Rails apps we might have for Jessie) in favor of an
incompatible Rails. I would be in favor of keeping an older version of
Rails as a pan B for those reverse dependencies that can't be updated in
time, provided the maintainers of those reverse dependencies chime in to
maintain the older Rails.

VWT I think the problem with Wheezy was that the work to get rails 3 in
wheezy was too late. If we had it done before, maybe we could also get a
rails3-ready redmine uploaded and properly tested together with it.

Are you going to be at Debconf? We could probably do Ruby and Rails BoF
sessions ...

-- 
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro at debian.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers/attachments/20130723/91a94aa3/attachment.sig>