On 04/11/12 at 10:51 -0600, Jordon Bedwell wrote: > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Jordon Bedwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Lucas Nussbaum > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > It depends on the 'ruby compatibility version' for that release. Is it > >>> > 1.9.1 or something else? > > > > 1.9.3. > > I also think that with Ruby finally moving to 2.0 it would be a good > chance for Debian to finally clean up the virtual package mess that is > Ruby, I don't literally mean it's a mess but in that 1.9.3 pulls 1.9.1 > which can lead to come confusion for some people, for example when a > client asks me why their system says it has 1.9.1 but it reports 1.9.3 > it's a pain to have to explain that to them. I think it should at > that point in the next release after wheezy officially be 1.9.3 and > 2.0 each in their own package with 1.9.1 being dropped (since 1.9.3 is > fully backwards with 1.9.1) and no more of this virtual packaging for > Ruby, but I don't know how easy or annoying it would be for you guys > to drop the virtual packaging on system Ruby's but I know it turns > into a pain to explain to people why Debian has an illogical package > name for system Ruby.
Looking at the content of your mail, it seems obvious that you don't understand why this 'mess' is necessary. I suggest you dig into the list archives before telling us what to do. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
