On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 07:34:27AM -0400, Steve Wills wrote: > Hi, > > On 9/17/19 2:40 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > > > What we are all trying to say is that adding flavors for ruby will have > > a big impact on build time and ressources required for building. > > > > If all you want is to have ruby flavors for the kicks of it, then I am > > glad to tell you that no, it will not be done. > > > > Now, the question is, why would someone need to have ruby flavors? > > > > The answer cannot be "because it should be fun" or "there is no reason > > there should not be". > > > > Give us a real reason about why it would be required. > > > > We have multiple versions of Ruby, we should provide the gems for each > version. Right now, there is no way for users of Ruby 2.4 to install gem > packages except to change the default ruby and then build their own > packages. We want people to have fewer reasons to build their own packages, > not more. > > We keep the latest Ruby as not default because it tends to have more bugs > and gems lag, and the older version of Ruby is available because some gems > tend to lag really badly. So, users do have legitimate reasons for using the > non-default versions of Ruby. Also, upstream supports latest and two > versions back. > > It wasn't until Ruby 2.6 was out that GitLab even supported 2.5, to give > just one example. > > So, we have those versions of Ruby, and they should be usable, and that > includes installing gems via pkg. > > There's the point that maybe we should only package gems that are needed by > other things, which I can understand, but don't know if I necessarily agree > with, because then you have users confused on what the "right" way to > install a gem is. "Oh, this one is packaged because something else in ports > needs it, so use the pkg, but this other one isn't packaged, so you have to > use gem." > > And I'd think the same applies to python modules or perl modules, etc. One > could ask, why not provide flavors for all versions of python, that is, 3.5, > 3.6 and 3.7, along with the 2.7 ones as well, but to me that doesn't seem > quite necessary because the compatibility is better there, as far as I can > tell. But, I wouldn't be opposed to it personally, if someone did make the > argument in favor of it. Same with Perl and especially things that depend on > Java. > > But that's all beside the point, really. > > Steve
Hello again everyone, I'm sorry I cannot express my thoughts correctly in English and I clould not explain why flavors for Ruby required but swills explained far better than me. Based on his explanation, will it be a valid reason to introduce flavors on Ruby ports? -- meta <m...@freebsd.org> _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"