From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Woodcroft Subject: Re: [PATCH] Upgrade ruby to 2.3.1 (including symlink patch) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 21:56:55 +1000 Message-ID: <5721FA87.3090803@gmail.com> References: <87inz2xqce.fsf@elephly.net> <57219F17.2070901@gmail.com> <87fuu6xn7t.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37823) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1avkZA-0006jv-GE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:57:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1avkZ5-0004dn-He for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:57:08 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]:34564) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1avkZ5-0004da-7z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:57:03 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id r5so31582660pag.1 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:57:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87fuu6xn7t.fsf@elephly.net> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" On 28/04/16 16:27, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Ben Woodcroft writes: > >> On 28/04/16 15:19, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >>> Rob Syme writes: >>> >>>> * gnu/packages/patches/ruby-symlinkfix.patch: New patch to fix issue #1448. >>>> * gnu/packages/ruby.scm (ruby): Update to 2.3.1 including symlink patch. >>> Thank you! The patch also needs to be registered in dist_patch_DATA in >>> “gnu/local.mk”. I can do this later when applying the patch in the >>> office, unless there are other objections to this patch. >> Do you mind holding off for a bit (no more than ~10 hours)? I wouldn't >> mind having a play with this myself. > No problem. I can also apply this tomorrow if your tests find no > problems. Thanks! Ruby-hashery now fails a unit test, but since that is a higher level package and ruby-ansi works I think it might be good to apply the patch here anyway. Would you mind please? Thanks both, ben