From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 4HCnDJ4Zu171dAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 21:48:14 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id eBm+KKwZu16WVQAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 21:48:28 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46340940FD7 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 21:48:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:45960 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYclH-0006Hu-9J for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 17:48:27 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39008) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYcl6-0006Gr-Ma for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 17:48:16 -0400 Received: from minsky.hcoop.net ([104.248.1.95]:50408) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYcl5-0005O7-KU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 17:48:16 -0400 Received: from marsh.hcoop.net ([45.55.52.66]) by minsky.hcoop.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1jYcl2-0000i5-Se; Tue, 12 May 2020 17:48:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 17:48:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Jack Hill X-X-Sender: jackhill@marsh.hcoop.net To: Josh Holland Subject: Re: Bundler 2 In-Reply-To: <87r1vppafb.fsf@inv.alid.pw> Message-ID: References: <87r1vppafb.fsf@inv.alid.pw> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Received-SPF: pass client-ip=104.248.1.95; envelope-from=jackhill@jackhill.us; helo=minsky.hcoop.net X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/12 17:48:13 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Guix-devel Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: -1.01 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [-1.01 / 13.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.53962690521576]; DWL_DNSWL_BLOCKED(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.51.188.0/24:c]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.06), country: US(-0.00), ip: 209.51.188.17(-0.54)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: eggs.gnu.org]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:209.51.188.0/24, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[jackhill@jackhill.us,guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[bundler.io:url]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[jackhill.us]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; DNSWL_BLOCKED(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[] X-TUID: +gpXWxXC3ELy On Tue, 12 May 2020, Josh Holland wrote: > Indeed I see that gnu/packages/ruby.scm only packages Bundler v1.17.3, > though Bundler 2 was released in January 2019 [0]. I'm not hugely > familiar with the Ruby ecosystem, but reading the release announcement > suggests that they expect users/developers to have both Bundler 1 and > Bundler 2 available. If I hadn't seen this, I'd have gone ahead and > submitted a patch simply upgrading the Bundler package definition, but > I'm not sure if that will then immediately break every package depending > on it that expects Bundler 1. > > Is this a valid concern? Should Guix provide packages for both Bundler > 1 and Bundler 2, or would just Bundler 2 be sufficient? I'll still > write a definition for the new version, but I'll hold off submitting a > patch until I've had some feedback. > > [0]: https://bundler.io/blog/2019/01/03/announcing-bundler-2.html Josh, Thanks for raising this question. I'm not a Rubist, but we do wrangle some Ruby code at work (unfortunately, not yet with Guix). Our experience has been that everyone interacting with the code should use the same Bundler version, so I think that as long as Bundler v1 is supportable, we should provide both in Guix. What do others think? Jack