On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:49:17PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:28:43 -0300 Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 05:33:58PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:33:43 +0100 Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:18:46PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > Could you please describe the chosen strategy? > > > [...] > > > > > > > > we will make the following change: > > > > > > > > - librubyX.Y.Z depends on rubyX.Y.Z > > > > - rubyX.Y.Z depends on ruby > > > > - ruby depends on the default ruby > > > > - ruby conflicts with all obsolete interpreters > > > > > > > > so this will force ruby1.8 to be removed on upgrades. > > > > > > Thanks for your reply, Antonio. > > > > > > So this will force everyone using any version of Ruby to also have the > > > default version, no matter what... > > > > one bit I forgot: we also decided that we won't support more than one > > version in stable releases, so the 'default' version is actually the > > unique one. > > I am not too happy to hear that: as far as I know, Debian gives more > choice to users for other languages (such as Python, AWK, all GCC > languages, ...). > I hope this situation will improve in the future. I think that > supporting at least a couple of major versions (a more mature one, used > as default interpreter, and a more recent bleeding edge one) would be > great.
Well, choices need people to support them. With 2 Ruby versions security problems often need 6 different uploads¹ that have to be built and tested, and I prefer to spend only half that time and spend the other half doing other things in Debian. :) ¹ 2 versions x 3 suites (unstable, stable, oldstable) Also, code that works Ruby 1.9 will mostly work with newer versions, while the interpreter runtime gets better and better, so I don't see much the point of keeping multiple versions around. -- Antonio Terceiro <terce...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
