On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 17:32:34 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/26/2011 10:00, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > > Normally, I 100% agree with Doug. But we're not only talking about ruby > > here, we're talking about rails. I hard a hard time naming gems that > > don't do this crap. I almost replied yesterday and said add an option, > > but IMHO either way is fine, and not worth diddling over. > > There are at least 3 possible ways to handle this situation: > > 1. Force the dependency
I hope we can avoid this. > 2a. Have an OPTION and error out if the user chooses WITHOUT_FOO and foo > is installed. For what (little) it's worth, my vote is for 2a. -- Sahil Tandon <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
