Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Hans de Graaff <graaff@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:01:55
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem by Mike Frysinger
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 16:52 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, June 27, 2011 12:00:19 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:53, Petteri R├Ąty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: > > > I like the ruby approach for the reason that it doesn't require users to > > > run update scripts like python-updater. > > > > Sure, but if that means the developers now have to bump every package > > in the tree when a new version of Python comes out, I'm not sure > > that's the best trade-off. > > if that's the requirement, i'd lean towards the python route we have today. > especially because python-updater will hit all necessary packages where-as > ruby will often not as that requires you to do `emerge -u <all installed > packages>`.
This approach works for ruby because we have multiple implementations (e.g. jruby, hopefully rubinius soon) rather than just multiple versions, and because major version updates that break compatibility are rare. Bumping happens more often than new versions or implementations come out, and we can't expect implementations to be fully compatible. Note that minor versions (ruby 1.8.6 vs ruby 1.8.7) are usually backward compatible, so we can just swap these in within the slot. I don't really see how a ruby-updater tool would work, so the approach we've taken works for ruby. Hans


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature