| 1 |
On 10/12/2013 01:34, Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-12-09, Adam Carter <adamcarter3@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> |
| 4 |
>>> I understand that sometimes a maintainer decides to add a feature that |
| 5 |
>>> requires some new dependancies, but why three different versions of |
| 6 |
>>> Ruby all of a sudden? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> That's the default if you havent specified which version of ruby you |
| 9 |
>> want, via RUBY_TARGETS in make.conf. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> That seems broken to me. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Are there packages that require all three versions of Ruby? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
No, there are packages that can use all versions but I know of none that |
| 19 |
require them all. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Python is in a similar position with 2.x and 3.x plus all the other |
| 22 |
implementations too. Portage has no way of knowing what pythons you |
| 23 |
have, need, or want to use. So the logic is: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If you specify in make.conf which versions you want, you get those |
| 26 |
versions, otherwise you get all versions. Individual ebuilds that use |
| 27 |
ruby may specify which versions they will be built against, so that you |
| 28 |
can chop and change the ruby slot in use and your ruby apps still work. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Personally, I'm getting a little tired of this eternal fascination with |
| 31 |
the latest greatest flavour of the day interpreter just because it's |
| 32 |
shiny and new. And rub devs are amongst the worst I have seen anywhere |
| 33 |
(worse than php and that's saying something). I know a little of what I |
| 34 |
talk about, the row of desks behind me has perl, python, php and ruby |
| 35 |
devs who belong to teams with definite preferences as to the |
| 36 |
implementation language. Matching code and app quality with experience |
| 37 |
and language used is an interesting mapping exercise. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 41 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives