On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Neil <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 2:59 AM, C. Florian Ebeling > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Neil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> After ruby19 is stable, will it replace ruby? >> >> since 1.9 has a slightly, but incompatibly changed syntax, I don't >> think that would be a good idea. I find other dynamic languages >> being present in parallel in several versions and though we do >> the same with ruby. E.g we have php4/php5, >> python{21,22,23,24,25,26,30}, perl{5,5.8,5.10}, >> so it seems reasonable to do the same with ruby. >> > > I don't think it would be a good idea either, but I wasn't sure: > there's no 'perl' or 'python' ports, but there's a 'ruby'. > > So then for consistency's sake, there should be some renames; for example: > ruby -> ruby18 > py-* -> py24-* (or to their respective dep, all the ones I've seen are > depending on python24) > rb-* -> ruby18-* (perhaps)
sounds like a lot of work to me for a small gain. you would probably need an empty "ruby" port with a sole "ruby18" dependency to avoid breaking all existing ports and installation, and then explain all this to puzzeled users. and probably the same for all ruby/rb-* ports. So quite some migration phase. but if somebody was willing to drive such an effort I wouldn't opposed it. we should still probably get quite detailed reasoning about all the implications for various scenarios and explaintions why it doesn't break things, before starting. PS. Please use Reply-All in list discussions, otherwise mails don't make it to the list. -- Florian Ebeling Twitter: febeling [email protected] _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
