Re: Spring clean up for Ruby on Rails.

[Takahiro Kambe <taca%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

In message <rmi8v74q6wj.fsf%fnord.ir.bbn.com@localhost>
        on Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:18:52 -0500,
        Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
> I don't understand ruby culture well enough to know.  But if it sounds
> like anything anyone would want to run would run on 3.2, then removing
> the older ones seems sensible.  If you dropped 3.0, how many packages
> would be lost?  What about 3.0 and also 3.1?
Here is a brief sumary of removing targets:

Rails 3.0.x

        databases/ruby-activerecord3
        databases/ruby-acts-as-versioned
        databases/ruby-arel20
        devel/ruby-activemodel
        devel/ruby-activesupport3
        devel/ruby-i18n_05
        devel/ruby-railties
        mail/ruby-actionmailer3
        mail/ruby-mail22
        www/ruby-actionpack3
        www/ruby-activeresource3
        www/ruby-erubis26
        www/ruby-rack12
        www/ruby-rack-mount06
        www/ruby-rack-test05
        www/ruby-rails3

Rails 3.1.x

        databases/ruby-activerecord31
        databases/ruby-arel22
        devel/ruby-activemodel31
        devel/ruby-railties31
        devel/ruby-turn08
        devel/ruby-uglifier10
        mail/ruby-actionmailer31
        mail/ruby-mail23
        misc/ruby-sprockets20
        www/ruby-actionpack31
        www/ruby-activeresource31
        www/ruby-coffee-rails31
        www/ruby-rack13
        www/ruby-rails31
        www/ruby-sass-rails31

There are a few packages could be removed (used by only above packages.)

> One thing to keep in mind is that pkgsrc bits are often used to run bits
> not from pkgsrc.  So "all rails pkgs in pkgsrc are ok with 3.2" does not
> imply "having 3.1 is pointless".
As for Ruby's extensions/libraries distributed from rubygems.org, they
could be installed manually with gem command.

> Do most ruby/rails people mock 3.1 as hopelessly old?  It seems 3.2 has
> been out a year, so I'd guess yes.

        Rails 3.0  Security fix only.
        Rails 3.1  Supported.

AFAIU, difference between 3.1 and 3.2 isn't too much.  But depending
packages, for example, conflicting www/ruby-rack12, www/ruby-rack13
and www/ruby-rack are problem.  So, I basically support only one
version of Rails except some migration period.

> I don't mean to give an answer - just explaining how I think about this
> 'should we remove x' question.
I really thanks for your advise.

Best reagrads.

-- 
Takahiro Kambe <taca%back-street.net@localhost>