-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello!
On Aug 28, 2010, at 12:56 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> - Do we want to make the installation of rubygems optional with 1.9.1?
> (as a separate package ?) That would probably be the right thing to do
> since I think that we should make the use
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 08:56:05 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
wrote:
>
> After looking at this issue, I think that we should:
> - package rubygems1.8 from rubygems 1.3.7
> - package rubygems for 1.9.1 from the ruby 1.9.2 sources
>
If it helps deciding what to do: We at Gentoo do the same thing
basically.
On 26/08/10 at 08:25 +0900, akira yamada wrote:
> 2010/8/26 Lucas Nussbaum :
> > That worked fine until Ruby 1.9.1, but apparently a change in Ruby
> > 1.9.2 broke Rubygems 1.3.7. This is exhibited by two bugs:
> [...]
> > - rubygems doesn't work:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?b
2010/8/26 Lucas Nussbaum :
> That worked fine until Ruby 1.9.1, but apparently a change in Ruby
> 1.9.2 broke Rubygems 1.3.7. This is exhibited by two bugs:
[...]
> - rubygems doesn't work:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=588125
I trace the following error:
--
$ gem1.9.1 list
/
Hi,
I am involved in the Debian Ruby team.
Currently, in Debian, we have rubygems1.8 and rubygems1.9.1 (1.9.1
being the compatibility version of Ruby, not the Ruby version itself)
for respectively ruby 1.8 and 1.9.2. Those packages are both built from
the rubygems 1.3.7 sources.
That means that R
I managed to typo the bug number. When replying, please Cc
588...@bugs.debian.org, not 488...@bugs.debian.org.
Thanks
- Lucas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
6 matches
Mail list logo
