ruby 1.9 upgrade

dude83 · 2009-09-14 13:52:15

hello,

the todays update broke my ruby 1.8 installation. when i saw there were ruby-1.9 packages, i thought it will install the binary to /usr/bin/ruby-1.9 like the (former?) AUR package did but it just replaced /usr/bin/ruby

anybody else haveing this problem?

cheers chris

dude83 · 2009-09-14 14:31:53

k, got all my ruby 1.8 stuff (mainly rails apps) up working again by compiling ruby 1.8.7 and all gems i used before to /usr/local/ manually, but was this really the easiest way? was this update really meant to replace ruby 1.8?

cheers

gpdnet · 2009-09-14 15:07:27

Yup, this broke my application too. I use 3 gems that are not yet ruby 1.9 compatible. Luckily I spotted it on my dev server before I upgraded the production server. I guess I should have been more vigilant... Reverted to the latest 1.8.7 package in the local pacman cache and all back to normal.

Still a bit naughty though to put in ruby 1.9 unannounced, when it is well known that there is still quite a bit of software and libraries that are not fully compatible.

Most other distros have ruby 1.9.1, but allow you to specify which one you want or install both and choose at runtime.

Regards,
Gary.

V01D · 2009-09-14 17:23:45

There's no way Ruby 1.9 can be thrown in like that, since a lot of ruby bindings aren't compiled against ruby1.9 yet. I support the idea of moving on to ruby 1.9, but it should be a separate branch (like ruby1.9 not ruby-1.9).
For example, SWIG doesn't quite work with 1.9, so there's going to be a lot of stuff that stops working.

In any case, a sane intermediate option would be to make 1.9 the stable branch (as it really is), but also provide an officially supported (ie: not from AUR) ruby1.8 branch.

PS: I'm adding ruby to my IgnorePkg for now

Last edited by V01D (2009-09-14 17:24:07)

xduugu · 2009-09-14 19:55:42

This discussion comes a bit late, given that ruby 1.9.1 was in testing for more than three month, and afaik no real issue has been reported during this period.

http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/ … 11855.html

madek · 2009-09-14 20:01:44

i clean the cache after the upgrade (i'm a idiot)
but i found the package ruby-1.8.7_p174-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz (te previous package)
this is the link with te repo that have the older package
http://www.schlunix.org/archlinux/extra … pkg.tar.gz

only for the people that how me (idiot again) clean the cache after te ruby update

Last edited by madek (2009-09-14 20:16:41)

V01D · 2009-09-14 20:15:09

xduugu wrote:

This discussion comes a bit late, given that ruby 1.9.1 was in testing for more than three month, and afaik no real issue has been reported during this period.
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/ … 11855.html

Well, I don't use testing repo, but I'm really not sure if ruby 1.9 is ready for replacing 1.8. Are ruby-gtk2 and kdebindings-ruby working with 1.9?
About SWIG (I'm sure many ruby extensions use it), I've read that 1.9 support is still in the bleeding edge version, not in latest stable 1.3.40 (I'm hoping they release it soon).

xduugu · 2009-09-14 20:46:28

@madek
There also is Arch Rollback Machine.

@void
As far as I know, the problem is/was, that none of the devs uses ruby that much and therefore probably don't know about the porting status. I myself use only one ruby program and have several smaller selfmade scripts, but they work flawlessly with ruby 1.9.1, and apparently, it's a similar situation for the majority of testing users.
If there is no feedback from users which actually use this stuff, it's hard for the maintainer to find the right point for pushing out such updates. Furthermore, there were ruby users actually begging for the update.

gpdnet · 2009-09-14 21:32:56

Ruby 1.9 is well known throughout the ruby community as not being compatible with various programs and libraries. That the maintainers of the ruby package in Arch do not know this is a little disturbing.

I have no objections to ruby 1.9.x being released from testing, but not to REPLACE the 1.8.x versions, at least not until the consesus of the ruby community is that overall only a very small number (if any) of older pacakges/libraries will break.

Until that time, having *both* versions in the main distribution should not be a problem.

Notice that the maintainers of python have not infilicted python 3.x on us yet without any kind of announcement for the very same reason. Pyhon 3.x has been stable not for quite some time, but will break enough programs etc. to not make it the "default" for some time yet.

It's all very well being "cutting edge" and up to date, but any new installations of Arch will not be able to run a noticable sub-set of ruby programs or gems.

Regards,
Gary.

Teoulas · 2009-09-14 21:44:13

I don't know how many desktop apps/scripts are written in ruby but I think most people that will be affected by this migration will be web developers using Rails. There's quite a few web apps out there that run on ruby 1.8 and won't just work with 1.9. Most of them are using older gems that are incompatible with Ruby 1.9 and updating the gems is not a trivial task as it could break the app.

That said, is it possible to have 2 ruby packages (1.8 and 1.9)? I'm interested in trying out 1.9 and eventually migrating all of my Rails projects to 1.9, but it needs time and testing. Another option is to just use whatever version is in the repos and a different tool to manage different ruby versions, like RVM, for example.

Last edited by Teoulas (2009-09-14 21:48:19)

Allan · 2009-09-14 23:02:02

gpdnet wrote:

Ruby 1.9 is well known throughout the ruby community as not being compatible with various programs and libraries. That the maintainers of the ruby package in Arch do not know this is a little disturbing.
....
Notice that the maintainers of python have not infilicted python 3.x on us yet without any kind of announcement for the very same reason.

Firstly, ruby maintainers = python maintainers = me. And I have not "inflicted" python3 on you yet for a whole different reason - it would require me to rebuild ~100 packages in our repos where as updating to ruby-1.9 required me to rebuild 2 packages...

As far as ruby goes, I maintain it because no-one else will. The update to 1.9 was mainly done as a TU appeared to have solved all the compatibility issues with packages in our repos and I had a lot of emails complaining that we were stuck at 1.8.

A ruby-1.8 package would be easy to build (and people would have just ensure they launched stuff with something like "ruby-1.8" instead), but given no-one who uses ruby has even bothered to put one into the AUR yet, I really can not be bothered making one either...

V01D · 2009-09-14 23:47:57

@allan
I just would like to know if you had the opportunity to rebuild ruby-gtk2 and kdebindings-ruby against 1.9, for example, because most of the breakages will occur against ruby extensions (in contrast to user scripts). If those packages build fine (and rails, which I don't use but I suspect many do), I guess there's no reason to keep 1.9 in testing. On the other side, if these things don't work, I'd suggest leaving as a 1.9 branch (with executable names like ruby-1.9, irb-1.9 and such, just as I did with the AUR package).

In any case, still having the 1.8 branch is a must. I could easily (or anyone else) create an AUR package for ruby1.8, but I suspect that (as someone else said) fresh Arch installations may break. In other words, I think there will be some packages on core/extra/community that would depend on ruby1.8, therefore it would be useful to have it officially supported, and not only on AUR.

wonder · 2009-09-14 23:52:39

@V01D http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16176?project=5
packages that are in community cannot be rebuilded agaisn't packages that are testing because we don't have a community testing.(we will have it). we can do that only after they are moved to extra. this is why there are delays

Last edited by wonder (2009-09-14 23:54:27)

V01D · 2009-09-14 23:59:36

@wonder: thanks, I've posted kdebindings there.
If all that rebuilds and runs fine, the final issue would be to fix SWIG. If a new version isn't released soon, I guess we could search for patches.

wonder · 2009-09-15 00:06:20

you should open a new bug report for that. kdebindings is in extra and we don't have any power

V01D · 2009-09-15 00:11:43

There's already a bug entry for kdebindings (and now I understand why).

gpdnet · 2009-09-15 06:50:25

Allan wrote:

As far as ruby goes, I maintain it because no-one else will. The update to 1.9 was mainly done as a TU appeared to have solved all the compatibility issues with packages in our repos and I had a lot of emails complaining that we were stuck at 1.8.
A ruby-1.8 package would be easy to build (and people would have just ensure they launched stuff with something like "ruby-1.8" instead), but given no-one who uses ruby has even bothered to put one into the AUR yet, I really can not be bothered making one either...

I thought that might be the case and I understand your position. For me it's easy because I can hold the upgrade on all other machines and take a copy of the current 1.8.7 package for new installs.

The number of ruby packages in your repos represents a very small percentage of the gems "out there" and I'm sure this will cause problems for many people. Apart from the roll-your-own answer, how can we get to know and have some kind of say in what NOT to update yet?

Given it's nature it might have at least warranted a "latest news" item on the web front page, like the latest vi update. Maybe Ruby is just not main stream enough...

Thanks,
Gary.

hbekel · 2009-09-15 09:19:20

I switched to 1.9 yesterday. I rebuild these gnome2 packages successfully, and so far they seem to work fine:

ruby-gnome2
ruby-gtk2
ruby-glib2
ruby-atk
ruby-pango
ruby-gdkpixbuf2
ruby-rcairo

I have also locally rebuild/adjusted the following packages I maintain in AUR:

ruby-uuid
ruby-macaddr
ruby-xdg
ruby-daemonize

These also seem to work fine so far, but I haven't tested them too much. All I did was make sure my selfwritten ruby/gnome2 stuff is back up.

Now I'll try to see if I can make my AUR packages install correctly for either 1.8 or 1.9 automatically. Currently the lib path is hardcoded in some of those PKGBUILDS, but i guess there should be a way to figure out the correct path during makepkg.
Anyways I guess I should make sure my pkgbuilds work with both versions, since I guess quite a few people will choose to stay with 1.8 for a while.

I was a little surprised to see 1.9 actually replace 1.8, but when I saw that my stuff seems to work fine, I'm not too worried myself (I don't use Rails, though)

@Allan: I noticed that ruby now ships gems and rake, so I believe the rubygems and rake packages are obsolete and shouldn't apper in depends or makedepends anymore, right?

Allan · 2009-09-15 09:26:21

hbekel wrote:

@Allan: I noticed that ruby now ships gems and rake, so I believe the rubygems and rake packages are obsolete and shouldn't apper in depends or makedepends anymore, right?

Correct.

hbekel · 2009-09-15 12:35:00

Ok, I have adjusted all my ruby AUR packages (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=hbekel)

These packages will now build install for either 1.8 or 1.9 depending on which version you are using as the default. Note that I've only briefly tested basic functionality. If you find bugs, please report on the AUR pages and/or upstream.

I had to apply some patching to C extensions since the API seems to have changed. Things I've come across:

RSTRING(foo)->len becomes RSTRING_LEN(foo)
RSTRING(foo)->ptr becomes RSTRING_PTR(foo)

RARRAY(foo)->len becomes RARRAY_LEN(foo)
RARRAY(foo)->ptr becomes RARRAY_PTR(foo)

I've also submitted the patches I made upstream.

dho · 2009-09-15 12:47:23

So far I have encountered two issues in my Rails 2.3.4 application due to the upgrade to ruby 1.9.

One is an "undefined method for string" error, which is a bug in Rails 2.3.4: https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/project … ng-ror-234 .

And the other issue is a problem with tempfile.rb in the current release of Ruby (1.9.1-p243), which caused an "Internal server error" in my application. See http://groups.google.com/group/phusion- … 303784dc39 and http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/1494

Both issues are fixed in the respective repositories, and so it is relatively easy to patch your local installation.

V01D · 2009-09-15 22:15:12

So the consensus would be that there's not going to be an officially support ruby1.8 package? Or is it not decided yet?
If there isn't going to be an official version, I'll go ahead and create an AUR package for it (and remove my ruby1.9 package).

FYI: any extension the uses extconf.rb can be compiled with either ruby1.8 or ruby1.9 by just running:

ruby-1.8 extconf.rb

or

ruby extconf.rb

(assuming "ruby" corresponds to the officially supported ruby 1.9 version)

Regarding SWIG, I've tested latest SVN version and the problems are still there. I guess that in these cases a ruby1.8 package on AUR will help until the issues are fixed upstream.

after all the heated discussion (?) I'm glad that ruby-1.9 can be finally used

V01D · 2009-09-16 17:05:16

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30221
In case anyone else needs ruby 1.8.

wicked · 2009-09-17 20:49:51

There is a ruby application that I love (community/raggle) and it no longer works with the upgraded ruby. It hasn't been updated since 2005, though, so I don't think the developer is going to update it for the new ruby. (as far as I can tell)

Is it going to be updated/rebuilt in the repos, or do I need to do that myself? I'm not exactly sure how to do that.

V01D · 2009-09-17 21:47:58

Hi,
I suggest you comment about raggle here: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16176

Arch Linux

#1 2009-09-14 13:52:15

ruby 1.9 upgrade

#2 2009-09-14 14:31:53

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#3 2009-09-14 15:07:27

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#4 2009-09-14 17:23:45

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#5 2009-09-14 19:55:42

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#6 2009-09-14 20:01:44

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#7 2009-09-14 20:15:09

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#8 2009-09-14 20:46:28

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#9 2009-09-14 21:32:56

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#10 2009-09-14 21:44:13

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#11 2009-09-14 23:02:02

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#12 2009-09-14 23:47:57

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#13 2009-09-14 23:52:39

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#14 2009-09-14 23:59:36

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#15 2009-09-15 00:06:20

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#16 2009-09-15 00:11:43

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#17 2009-09-15 06:50:25

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#18 2009-09-15 09:19:20

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#19 2009-09-15 09:26:21

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#20 2009-09-15 12:35:00

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#21 2009-09-15 12:47:23

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#22 2009-09-15 22:15:12

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#23 2009-09-16 17:05:16

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#24 2009-09-17 20:49:51

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

#25 2009-09-17 21:47:58

Re: ruby 1.9 upgrade

Board footer