On 07/03/11 at 13:00 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Antono Vasiljev escreveu isso aí: > > On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 10:04 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > 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 we should have different alternatives configurations for > the the various ruby-related binaries. If a user decides that she wants > "Ruby 1.9", then ruby, irb, gem etc, should all be the ones provided by > Ruby 1.9; I think that irb/gem/etc should be slaves of the choice for > /usr/bin/ruby. > > IMO such ruby-switcher tool is an unecessary layer on top of something > that already does what we need to be done, and has years of testing > (i.e. the Debian alternatives system). > > Lucas, could you please ellaborate on why you think we should have > different alternatives for each Ruby-related binary?
I couldn't find a way to implement it. For ruby1.9.1, it would work. But all slaves from a master alternative need to be in the same binary package AFAIK, so we can't have a master alternative alternative in ruby1.8 that controls a slave one in libgems-ruby1.8. (But maybe I just missed something) - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
