On 07/03/11 at 17:06 +0200, Antono Vasiljev wrote: > Hello, Lucas. > > On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 10:04 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > ruby-defaults (4.6) experimental; urgency=low > > > > * Remove the Ruby policy from the package. It is no longer applied to ruby > > packages anyway. > > * Make all binary packages transitional packages for their ruby1.8 > > counterparts. This source package can be dropped after the wheezy > > release. > > * Upload to experimental. Changes are very intrusive and need > > extensive testing. > > I replaced ruby packages on fresh natty with your versions and all seems > fine. No one of my work projects affected by changes (at least for > 1.9.1). > > > Note that we have two alternatives trees (one for ruby, one for gem). It's > > not > > convenient to have a single one with alternatives. I think that it would > > make > > sense to have a separate "ruby-switcher" tool, that would: > > - change all alternatives at the same time > > - ensure that needed native packages are installed > > Any takers? > > Probably I can take this. > > We need ruby-switcher to keep in sync versions for ruby and gem via > alternatives system. Other thing i would like to keep in sync and switch > with ruby version is /var/lib/gems/*/bin/. Can we manage it via > alternatives system too?
I don't think that it's a good idea to try to manage user-installed binaries using alternatives. It looks fragile. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
