>>> 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.
I agree. But I intended to say that alternatives is not fit for that usage. If we proved ruby1.9.x packages and we use alternatives for all ruby1.9.x, we should check many packages. -- ay -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org