On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 07:18:07PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> Adam Duke <adamduke@twitter.com> wrote:
> > From: Adam Duke <adam.v.duke@gmail.com>
> > Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:06:31 -0500
> > Subject: [PATCH] limit rack version for ruby compatibility
> > 
> > rack introduced a dependency on ruby 2.2.2 or greater in
> > https://github.com/rack/rack/commit/771d94e5dbe53058160a1f8a4cc56384c1d2a048
> 
> Cc-ing rack-devel + Aaron
> 
> Yikes!  ruby-core still supports Ruby 2.1 and possibly even 2.0.0
> 
> And there doesn't seem to be any documentation on why Ruby 2.2.x
> is needed in the first place for rack.git
> commit a2fe30a5e70371c89c1b29fdc2dc5f8027bc5fe6
> 
> 	http://bogomips.org/mirrors/rack.git/patch?id=a2fe30a5e70371c8
> 
> Aaron?

The main reason I bumped it up to Ruby 2.2.x is because that will be the
minimum version of Ruby I'll be stuck with throughout Rack 2.x's
lifetime.  IOW, I can't drop Ruby versions in anything but a major
release so I'm being conservative and only going with the latest (at the
time that was 2.2).

I could be convinced to bring down the version number, but I'd like to
know why first. :)

> > In order to maintain support for ruby versions less than 2.2.2, limit
> > the rack dependency to supported versions for the current ruby.
> > ---
> >  unicorn.gemspec | 6 +++++-
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/unicorn.gemspec b/unicorn.gemspec
> > index 1099361..ce7080a 100644
> > --- a/unicorn.gemspec
> > +++ b/unicorn.gemspec
> > @@ -35,7 +35,11 @@
> >    # up/downgrade to any other version, the Rack dependency may be
> >    # commented out.  Nevertheless, upgrading to Rails 2.3.4 or later is
> >    # *strongly* recommended for security reasons.
> > -  s.add_dependency(%q<rack>)
> > +  if RUBY_VERSION < '2.2.2'
> > +    s.add_dependency(%q<rack>, '~> 1.6.4')
> > +  else
> > +    s.add_dependency(%q<rack>)
> > +  end
> 
> Interesting, I built a gem with RubyGems 2.5.1 and this conditional
> was preserved in the gemspec.  I tried this in the past (2009/2010?)
> and any conditionals written like this got clobbered in the final
> gemspec.

I wonder if that's true even after you upload to rubygems.org.  I'd
guess it's not true as they don't want to support arbitrary ruby code
for specs.

> In other words, conditionals used to be evaluated at "gem build" time,
> not "gem install" time.  We should check when this improvement was
> introduced into RubyGems should we go this route.
> 
> Also, maybe '~> 1.6.4' is too strict, '~> 1.6' could be better in case
> a rack 1.7 comes out in parallel to rack 2.0

Agree here.  1.7 may be possible, and I want to make the guarantee that
its API is backwards compatible with 1.6.

-- 
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rack Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rack-devel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.