On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 08:38:44PM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 02:11:04PM -0700, Jeremy Evans wrote: > > > This makes ruby 2.1 the default ruby version. Now that ruby 2.1.3 has > > > been released, it makes sense to switch the default from ruby 2.0 to > > > ruby 2.1. > > > > Thinking out loud, but is there still a point in having 4 different > > versions in the tree ? We tried to reduce the number of pythons and > > gccs... > > > > Landry > > I hope ruby 1.8, at least, is on the way out. This is getting > ridiculous. > The majority of ports that embed ruby still use ruby 1.8. Some use ruby 1.9, 2.0, or 2.1. I'm fine with removing old ruby versions, assuming that nothing else in the tree depends on them. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen to be the case currently. Now, nothing in the tree embeds rubinius (or can, since rubinius doesn't use a shared library), and rubinius takes a lot longer to build and is less useful since the version we ship doesn't use JIT most of the time (since it rarely supports the ports version of LLVM). If the thought is we just have too many ruby interpreters, I'd vote to remove that one. FWIW, I think all ruby interpreters and libraries in ports take less time to build than pypy. :) Jeremy
