On 20/11/11 at 21:18 -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí: > > > I wrote update-ruby-alternatives, and the solution I came up with was to > > > add it to a new package called ruby-common, which the actualy > > > interpreter packages (ruby1.8, ruby1.9.1 etc) should depend on. > > > > > > The code for this is ready in the `update-ruby-alternatives` branch on > > > the ruby-defaults git repository, would you have a look at it and tell > > > us what you think? Do you guys agree with that implementation? > > > > Hi Antonio, > > > > I reviewed the ruby-common package, and it sounds very good to me. The > > only comment is that it should probably be a separate ruby-common source > > package (ruby-defaults contains only transitional packages at this > > point). > > > > Another option would be to call it "ruby-switcher" or "ruby-switch". > > What do you think? > > I think these are very sensible suggestions, thank you. I've worked on > this today and we have a first version of the ruby-switch package: > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-ruby-extras/ruby-switch.git;a=summary > > Feedback is welcome. I will probably upload it sometime during next > weekend.
It seems that it wasn't uploaded? I still like the idea, and would like to see it in Debian. > I also thought better and figured out that making the interpreter > packages depend on it is too much, so I think ruby-switch is going to be > a regular, optional package. Mmh, the interpreter could still suggest it, I think. When uploaded, could you file wishlist bugs on ruby1.8 and ruby1.9.1 about that, so that I don't forget? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111220170901.gb2...@xanadu.blop.info
