Re: Ruby 1.9.1 package release plan
On 21/07/09 at 17:54 +0900, akira yamada wrote:
> > With your plan ([2]), the new ruby1.9 package (using ruby 1.9.1) would
> > break all the existing libs named *-ruby1.9. Those libs would have to be
> > transitionned so that files are installed elsewhere (moving files from
> > /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.0 to /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1). Transitionning all those
> > libraries, and doing it again for ruby1.9.2 or 1.9.3 (when the API
> > changes) is going to be extremely painful. With the current amount of
> > manpower, it will probably take a few months before ruby libs are no longer
> > broken in unstable.
>
> But squeez can include only one Ruby 1.9.x package.
> Or we shoud have some ruby1.9.x packages on squeeze?
I agree that squeeze should only have one ruby 1.9.x package.
> > Sure, typing ruby1.9.1 is harder than typing ruby for the user. We could
>
> I think that complexty is a problem...
We are discussing typing "ruby1.9 foo.rb" instead of "ruby1.9.1 foo.rb".
That's only two bytes!
> > use alternatives so that the user can select the version of ruby he
> > wants, but then we would have to fix all the ruby applications that use
> > /usr/bin/ruby first (so that they hardcode the version of ruby they want
> > to work with).
>
> I don't like alternatives for that usage.
> Users assume all alternatives works fine with all other programs.
> (ruby1.9(.0) foo.rb, ruby1.9(.1) foo.rb and ruby1.9(.2) works as the same.)
>
> We should have standard "ruby" for users and packages.
> I think that "/usr/bin/ruby" should be provided by a package
> such as ruby-default.
Having packages use /usr/bin/ruby is a problem when we want to switch
from ruby1.8 to ruby1.9 for /usr/bin/ruby. We should check that every
package using /usr/bin/ruby works with ruby1.9 first.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: