On 21/07/09 at 17:54 +0900, akira yamada wrote: > > With your plan ([2]), the new ruby1.9 package (using ruby 1.9.1) would > > break all the existing libs named *-ruby1.9. Those libs would have to be > > transitionned so that files are installed elsewhere (moving files from > > /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.0 to /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1). Transitionning all those > > libraries, and doing it again for ruby1.9.2 or 1.9.3 (when the API > > changes) is going to be extremely painful. With the current amount of > > manpower, it will probably take a few months before ruby libs are no longer > > broken in unstable. > > But squeez can include only one Ruby 1.9.x package. > Or we shoud have some ruby1.9.x packages on squeeze?
I agree that squeeze should only have one ruby 1.9.x package. > > Sure, typing ruby1.9.1 is harder than typing ruby for the user. We could > > I think that complexty is a problem... We are discussing typing "ruby1.9 foo.rb" instead of "ruby1.9.1 foo.rb". That's only two bytes! > > use alternatives so that the user can select the version of ruby he > > wants, but then we would have to fix all the ruby applications that use > > /usr/bin/ruby first (so that they hardcode the version of ruby they want > > to work with). > > I don't like alternatives for that usage. > Users assume all alternatives works fine with all other programs. > (ruby1.9(.0) foo.rb, ruby1.9(.1) foo.rb and ruby1.9(.2) works as the same.) > > We should have standard "ruby" for users and packages. > I think that "/usr/bin/ruby" should be provided by a package > such as ruby-default. Having packages use /usr/bin/ruby is a problem when we want to switch from ruby1.8 to ruby1.9 for /usr/bin/ruby. We should check that every package using /usr/bin/ruby works with ruby1.9 first. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [email protected] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [email protected] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
