On 22/07/09 at 08:24 +0900, akira yamada / ?????? wrote: > >>> 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. > > I agree. > > But I intended to say that > alternatives is not fit for that usage. > > If we proved ruby1.9.x packages and > we use alternatives for all ruby1.9.x, > we should check many packages.
That could be a useful goal for squeeze. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
