From: hemant <gethemant@...>
Date: 2007-12-26T04:43:51+09:00
Subject: Re: Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0)

On Dec 26, 2007 1:01 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
>
> Eric Hodel wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 2007, at 07:03 AM, Richard Kilmer wrote:
> >> Just re-built latest svn of 1.9.0 and base64.rb is removed.  Its
> >> required in active_support (conversions.rb).  Do you think its worth
> >> having all libraries that were removed from Ruby in 1.9.0 moved into a
> >> "legacy gem" or something?  I am sure the rails guys will catch this
> >> and remove the dependency since its not going to be supported going
> >> forward, but this kind of thing may happen to other libraries.
> >
> > I don't think a legacy gem should be created.  This doesn't encourage
> > people to switch to the new way of doing things, whatever that is.  (For
> > base64, use [str].pack 'm*'.)
> >
> > People have asked me to alias require_gem for RubyGems 1.x, and I will
> > not.  Software depending on it won't get fixed if it stays around.
> >
> >
>
> Yeah ... I'm with you on this one, having just discovered that two gems,
> rcov and hpricot, need to be updated to work with 1.9 anyhow. Should
> there be some kind of "master list" of the "commonly used gems" that
> need updating so they'll work with either 1.8 or 1.9? So far I have
>
> 1. rcov
> 2. hpricot
> 3. active_support
>

Yes lots, Almost ALL C extensions would require some kinda tinkering.
My broken lib list is:
mysql, mongrel, eventmachine




-- 
Let them talk of their oriental summer climes of everlasting
conservatories; give me the privilege of making my own summer with my
own coals.

http://gnufied.org