On 10/12/2013 01:34, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2013-12-09, Adam Carter <adamcart...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I understand that sometimes a maintainer decides to add a feature that >>> requires some new dependancies, but why three different versions of >>> Ruby all of a sudden? > >> That's the default if you havent specified which version of ruby you >> want, via RUBY_TARGETS in make.conf. > > That seems broken to me. > > Are there packages that require all three versions of Ruby? >
No, there are packages that can use all versions but I know of none that require them all. Python is in a similar position with 2.x and 3.x plus all the other implementations too. Portage has no way of knowing what pythons you have, need, or want to use. So the logic is: If you specify in make.conf which versions you want, you get those versions, otherwise you get all versions. Individual ebuilds that use ruby may specify which versions they will be built against, so that you can chop and change the ruby slot in use and your ruby apps still work. Personally, I'm getting a little tired of this eternal fascination with the latest greatest flavour of the day interpreter just because it's shiny and new. And rub devs are amongst the worst I have seen anywhere (worse than php and that's saying something). I know a little of what I talk about, the row of desks behind me has perl, python, php and ruby devs who belong to teams with definite preferences as to the implementation language. Matching code and app quality with experience and language used is an interesting mapping exercise. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
