Re: [PATCH] limit rack version for ruby compatibility

[Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>]

Aaron Patterson <tenderlove@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> 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. :)

Because other people are _always_ slow to upgrade :)

However, I suppose it's fine to bring the requirement up with a
major version bump of Rack.  I don't want to burden you with
old cruft, either.

unicorn may also be able to drop the dependency on rack by
lazy loading:

* Rack::Utils::HTTP_STATUS_CODES is the main thing we use from
  Rack at runtime; and unicorn would actually function fine if
  the hash were empty; HTTP status lines would just be short
  and non-descriptive.

* The Rack::Builder dependency can be optional, even.

Fwiw, I plan to support Rack 1.x and Ruby 1.9.3 under unicorn for a few
more years because of LTS distros.  New versions take priority, of
course.

> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 07:18:07PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > Adam Duke <adamduke@twitter.com> wrote:
> > > +++ 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.

Ah, you're right.  I was looking at the gemspec which is distributed
with the gem source and not the regenerated gemspec which RubyGems
actually uses.

So yeah, it looks like Adam's patch only affects the gem build process.

-- 

--- 
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.