On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 04:39:27AM -0500, Daniel Macks wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 10:22:04AM +0100, Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:28:33PM -0500, Daniel Macks wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:35:31PM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you really need the *default* interpretter to have both, or just
> > > "know a path to an interpretter that has both"? I.e....
> > >
> > > > to show some possible configurations that do not work:
> > > > ruby16 + ruby18 + ruby 1.8.0 + ripper-ruby16 + fxruby-ruby18 + freeride
> > > > ruby16 + ruby18 + ruby 1.8.0 + ripper-ruby16 + fxruby-ruby16 + freeride
> > >
> > > why can't this latter one be made to work by explicitly calling ruby16
> > > instead of just "default ruby"?
>
> This above sentence is crucial.
Indeed :)
Or the one asking if the default interpreter needs to have the extensions or
some known interpreter, not neccessariley the default one.
>
> > > > So I made ripper-ruby16 0.0.5-2 that has a splitoff ripper
> > > > 0.0.5-2-16, ripper-ruby18 with splitoff ripper 0.0.5-2-18, etc.
> > >
> > > What exactly is the purpose of these splitoffs and what do they
> > > contain? [...]
> > > are you trying to arrange so that other fink packages can use yours
> > > by simply "Depends: ripper" and be assured of a fully functional
> > > module *somewhere*?
> > Yes, that's what I intended to do.
>
> Okay then, I have to ask: why?
It was the first soulotion that came to my mind and I like it.
>
> > > Based on the freeride example you give, you're in the same
> > > versioned-perl-module handbasket. If it's the freeride package (which
> > > is not ruby-versioned) that needs a certain suite of modules all in
> > > the "same ruby-version", it's up to that package to request them. Why
> > > can't it just pick a ruby and use it?
> >
> > As you put it it should be possible to make
> > freeride + freeride-ruby18 + freeride-ruby16 where freeride-rubyXX contains a
> > script for running freeride with the correct interpreter.
>
> It seems like this does not require having a "ripper" package in any
> form ("real", a SplitOff, or a Provides). Just have ripperXX, and each
Yes, that is why this solves the problem in another way.
> freeride-rubyXX use ripperXX directly. Consider this pseudopackage:
>
> Package: freeride-rubyXX
> Depends: ripperXX, fxrubyXX, rubyXX
>
> That way a user could pick whichever freeride he wanted (based on
> which ruby he has installed) and he will automatically have the needed
> other packages installed in that ruby.
I had another thing in mind:
Package: freeride
Depends: freeride-ruby-runtime
(contains the freeride sources)
Package: freeride-ruby16
Depends: ruby16, ripper-ruby16, fxruby-ruby16
Provides: freeride-ruby-runtime
(contains a startup script)
This solution is more flexible (than the one with splitoffs) in one way:
I can install freeride and another ruby application, each using its own
version of ruby and extensions.
Thanks
--
Michal Suchanek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
