Bug 348901 – dev-ruby/rubygems-1.8.15 stable request

• Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Jens-Uwe Peter 2010-12-16 22:47:36 UTC]

Please stabilize some package greater r1 (currently r4 is the only one available) for solving QA security issues of world writable files mentioned in bug #320435.

[Comment 1 Hans de Graaff 2010-12-17 08:56:24 UTC]

This is not possible as long as there are ebuilds left that use the 'gems' eclass.

[Comment 2 Hans de Graaff 2012-01-21 07:55:49 UTC]

*** Bug 399571 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Comment 3 Hans de Graaff 2012-01-21 08:34:19 UTC]

Currently remaining ebuilds still using gems.eclass:

dev-ruby/facets-1.4.5
dev-ruby/gettext_activerecord-2.1.0.ebuild
dev-ruby/gettext_rails-2.1.0
dev-ruby/locale-2.0.5
dev-ruby/locale_rails-2.0.5
dev-ruby/rspec-rails-1.2.9
dev-ruby/ruby-gettext-2.1.0
net-irc/rbot-0.9.10-r1

There are now stabilization bugs for all of these packages.

There are also packages remaining in the ruby overlay. My proposal would be to just remove them from the overlay.

[Comment 4 Hans de Graaff 2012-04-10 19:09:26 UTC]

We will handle actual stabilization as part of bug 411507

[Comment 5 Hans de Graaff 2012-05-05 06:41:41 UTC]

Reversing on my comment #4 I think it makes more sense to stable the new rubygems first and only then move on to mark ruby19 stable. This version of rubygems has been in our tree for quite some time and has no open issues. Please test and mark stable:

=dev-ruby/rubygems-1.8.15

(x86, you'll need to handle bug 396305 first to get a proper jruby version stable).

[Comment 6 Brent Baude (RETIRED) 2012-05-05 21:35:00 UTC]

ppc done

[Comment 7 Agostino Sarubbo 2012-05-06 14:07:12 UTC]

amd64 stable

[Comment 8 Mark Loeser (RETIRED) 2012-05-20 07:38:00 UTC]

ppc64 done

[Comment 9 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2012-05-26 16:51:48 UTC]

Stable for HPPA.

[Comment 10 Akinori Hattori 2012-06-16 05:06:16 UTC]

ia64 stable

[Comment 11 Myckel Habets 2012-06-23 05:47:13 UTC]

Bug 411507 is doing =dev-ruby/rubygems-1.8.24, Should remaining archs move to that bug?

[Comment 12 Hans de Graaff 2012-06-23 05:51:00 UTC]

(In reply to comment #11)
> Bug 411507 is doing =dev-ruby/rubygems-1.8.24, Should remaining archs move
> to that bug?

Yes, that probably makes sense. We initially filed a separate bug for this version since the move to the new rubygems might have caused issues, but this does not really seem to be the case.