Summary: | dev-ruby/rubygems-1.8.15 stable request | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Jens-Uwe Peter <jup.coburg> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Ruby Team <ruby> |
Status: | RESOLVED OBSOLETE | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | alpha, mina, s390, sparc, x86 |
Priority: | Highest | Keywords: | STABLEREQ |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | 344477, 359135, 380041, 384825, 399581, 408951 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Jens-Uwe Peter
2010-12-16 22:47:36 UTC
This is not possible as long as there are ebuilds left that use the 'gems' eclass. *** Bug 399571 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 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. We will handle actual stabilization as part of bug 411507 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). ppc done amd64 stable ppc64 done Stable for HPPA. ia64 stable Bug 411507 is doing =dev-ruby/rubygems-1.8.24, Should remaining archs move to that bug? (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. |