On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 05:57:26PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 16:21:53 +0200: > > On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 04:03:34PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > s...@apache.org wrote on Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:11:02 -0000: > > > > -AC_PATH_PROGS(RUBY, ruby1.8 ruby18 ruby, none) > > > > +AC_PATH_PROGS(RUBY, $RUBY ruby, none) > > > > > > Could you re-add ruby1.8? I added it because in some environment I had > > > no 'ruby' binary but did have a 'ruby1.8' binary... > > > > And 'env RUBY=ruby1.8 ./configure' is not good enough? > > Some people have ruby18, or ruby1.9, or ruby19, or in the future > > maybe even ruby2020 or whatever. Why special-case one of these > > in the configure script? > > I didn't suggest special-casing them: if the bindings are compatible > with 1.9, we could use > > AC_PATH_PROGS(RUBY, $RUBY ruby ruby1.9 ruby1.8, none)
Then why add not ruby19 and ruby18 as well? This is system-specific stuff that needs to be configurable, not hard-coded in our scripts. The list of rubys is going to grow over time and I don't think that's a good idea. I'm glad Arfrever pointed out a way to avoid this problem.