> On Sep 13, 2019, at 22:27, Koichiro Iwao <m...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 09:33:43AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> Systems MUST be able to support concurrent installations of python2.7 >> and actual python. What is your use case for concurrent ruby? > > I know the importance of Python 2. Even if it is EoL-ed, it will be > required over the next a few years because not a few applications don't > migrate to Python 3. So that's true and reasonable. > > Excuse me that I'm answering your question with a question. What about > PHP? Concurrent installation is a MUST? > > FreeBSD ports allows concurrent installations of multiple Ruby versions > however doesn't allow concurrent installations of rubygems for multiple > Ruby versions. This inconsistency is the issue for me.
The issue is that FLAVORS has added a substantial (and painful) complexity to python ports and python.mk. It means that a number of people have had to be hyper-vigilant and watch commits closely to catch errors introduced when people utilize the paradigm incorrectly. It’s a bitter pill, but it’s accepted because the use-case for multiple concurrent python versions is essential. As Antoine said, inconsistency isn’t a strong enough use case. Which brings us back to the original question: is there a specific use-case for concurrent ruby that makes the substantial increase in cognitive load, complexity, and monitoring worth it? # Adam — Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
