Ruby 2.4.0 update

Ruby 2.4.0 update

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 617 bytes --]

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 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?

Patch attached. Not sure about the commit message.

0: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2016/12/25/ruby-2-4-0-released/


[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-gnu-ruby-Update-to-2.4.0.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1216 bytes --]

From 6f029cbaedf273febef92e9c4197c55414b818d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2016 18:07:47 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: ruby: Update to 2.4.0.

* gnu/packages/ruby.scm (ruby-2.4): New variable.
---
 gnu/packages/ruby.scm | 14 ++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/ruby.scm b/gnu/packages/ruby.scm
index c87f8b309..dee98c236 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/ruby.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/ruby.scm
@@ -100,6 +100,20 @@ a focus on simplicity and productivity.")
     (home-page "https://ruby-lang.org")
     (license license:ruby)))
 
+(define-public ruby-2.4
+  (package (inherit ruby)
+           (replacement #f)
+           (version "2.4.0")
+           (source
+            (origin
+              (method url-fetch)
+              (uri (string-append "https://cache.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/"
+                                  (version-major+minor version)
+                                  "/ruby-" version ".tar.xz"))
+              (sha256
+               (base32
+                "141nnsdk2q83c23p5kl404id8gy1ap261gin48rbjj5sbksgx1rs"))))))
+
 (define-public ruby-2.2
   (package (inherit ruby)
     (replacement #f)
-- 
2.11.0

Re: Ruby 2.4.0 update

[Ben Woodcroft]

Thanks Marius, an enjoyable xmas read of all the new features it was.


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

I'm not sure that the Fixnum/Bignum changes are particularly harmful if 
I'm understanding correctly, since both classes can still be used. I 
can't see any possible backwards incompatibility.

> 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.

When we do such an update, I think we should make ruby inherit from 
ruby-2.3 as discussed previously. Also, what would you say to setting 
the "--jemalloc" configure flag for speed and compiling with gcc-5, both 
for speed?

Thanks, ben.

Re: Ruby 2.4.0 update

[Ben Woodcroft]

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',.

> I'm not sure that the Fixnum/Bignum changes are particularly harmful 
> if I'm understanding correctly, since both classes can still be used. 
> I can't see any possible backwards incompatibility.
Well, I suppose it isn't impossible. Shouldn't say such things.

>> 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?

Thanks and happy travels,
ben

Re: Ruby 2.4.0 update

[Marius Bakke]

[-- 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 --]