Ruby 1.9 port

[Caspar Florian Ebeling]

>> And this "not production-ready" is not clear either. My webhoster provides
>> 1.9
>> in the standard basic web plan already. Of course, Matz has not announced
>> it to be stable release, but it is features-frozen quite a while.
>
> Right, that's more what I meant.  It's not supposed to be a drop-in
> replacement for 1.8; there are deliberate incompatibilities.  And I assume
> anything using threads is likely to have some bugs with the new threading
> scheme.
>
>> Those are the reasons why I think the name should be ruby19, i.e.
>> a new package in the namespace.
>>
>> But I wonder how to deal with all the libraries then. That
>> can probably only be fixed by adding again all the rb packages
>> as rb19 or something, like it is with python already.
>
> I would think that's a good thing, just like the conservative switch to
> parallel makes; you can add an rb19 dependency once you know that the
> package actually works with Ruby 1.9.

Ok, with your encouraging comment I thought just check in and
see how things work out. So we have ruby19 by now. (The broader audience
obviously has to wait for the new portindex at about 10 CEST to find
it, or do this step
manually.)

Florian




-- 
Florian Ebeling
florian.ebeling at gmail.com