On 2009-05-10 20:31, C. Florian Ebeling wrote: > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Rainer Müller <[email protected]> wrote: >> C. Florian Ebeling wrote: >>> One other thing I noticed is that ruby_select does not >>> declare any dependency on any ruby, which surprised me >>> a bit. But python does not require any python either. >>> There is probably some reasoning behind this. I would >>> like to learn more about the this. >> I would find it a bit strange if *_select required a specific version. >> Instead, the ruby and python versions should require *_select. > > Ok, that way around it sounds reasonable. Although, you could immediately > select a default, if we were pulling one version via the select port, and > offer > flexibility using variants.
Which would also mean you would have to install this specific version to get the *_select port. > As it seems it is even possible to have a variable number of executables > or files in the various selectables, is that true? That might help > with rake and gem, which are only part of the 1.9 release. All files have to be in the base file, but the select file can use "-" to indicate that there should not be any symlink at this location. > Any idea what select does when it encouters a real file being in the place > where it intends to put a symlink? It will overwrite the file. > Btw: The 'port select' in trunk, which is mentioned in the ticket, does > that indeed obsolete all these efforts? It obsoletes the various *_select tools based on select.sh by providing the same functionality in base. Rainer _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
