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: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 09:52:17 +1000 Message-ID: <5723F3B1.9070100@gmail.com> References: <87inz2xqce.fsf@elephly.net> <57219F17.2070901@gmail.com> <87fuu6xn7t.fsf@elephly.net> <5721FA87.3090803@gmail.com> 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]:34219) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awIDQ-000092-UN for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:53:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awIDD-0005p2-B2 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:52:49 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-x244.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::244]:36577) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1awIDC-0005br-2j for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:52:43 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-x244.google.com with SMTP id i5so13896615pag.3 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:52:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5721FA87.3090803@gmail.com> 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 21:56, Ben Woodcroft wrote: > > > 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? I've just pushed a slightly modified version of Rob's patch and a patch for ruby-hashery to master; I believe all the packages in gnu/packages/ruby.scm build now. ben