![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/d18d0fd84170a8255c30388a800b96c8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
* Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> [Apr 29. 2013 10:17]:
On 15.04.2013 15:04, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
* Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> [Apr 15. 2013 10:27]:
We might want to discuss a strategy - I would like to replace ruby1.9 with ruby2.0 in 13.1.
Given that 13.1 is the base for SLE12, this upgrade is a no-brainer.
http://s.kulow.org/3B shows the difference between factory failures in d:l:r:e and ruby 2.0 default repo. Have a lot of fun.
So there are 20-30 gems not building properly, doesn't sound too bad. And which of those failing gems are actually relevant ? What is your (as the openSUSE release guard) acceptance criteria for Ruby 2.0 in factory ? All packages in d:l:r:e building ? Klaus -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org