Re: Ruby 2.4.0 update

[Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1436 bytes --]

Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au> writes:

> Hi Marius,
>
> On 26/12/16 23:18, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
>> On 26/12/16 03:09, Marius Bakke wrote:
>>> In good tradition, ruby made a new release today (25/12)[0].
>>>
>>> I tried building some packages with the new version, but ruby-minitest
>>> complains that Rake 12 is too new (even with the latest minitest). There
>>> have been some core changes as well, with Fixnum and Bignum now merged
>>> into a single Integer class.
>> I updated ruby-minitest to the newest version and pushed, but as you 
>> mention the check phase requires rake <12. This actually stems from 
>> hoe though rather than minitest, I've asked the devs about it here:
>> https://github.com/seattlerb/hoe/issues/77
> This issue has now been fixed in hoe, in the just released 3.16.0. I 
> just pushed this to master after building the downstream packages 
> without issue as '8e941f20',.

Cool, thanks!

>>> I suggest that we keep ruby 2.3 as the main "ruby" variable until the
>>> ecosystem catches up. Users will still get the latest version when
>>> using `guix package` or `guix environment`. WDYT?
>> I would agree, but I'd hope that the hoe issue is an isolated one and 
>> that we can make ruby-2.4 the default very soon.
>   What do you think about making 2.4 the default and pushing to staging, 
> if there are no obvious issues?

Sounds good for the next staging cycle :-)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]