Re: Ruby 2.4.0 update

[Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au>]

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