On 7 March 2016 at 11:44, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:33 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 7 March 2016 at 00:24, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 6:19 PM, sebb wrote:
About half the ruby script files use /usr/bin/ruby and the others use
/usr/bin/ruby1.9.1
I'm n
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:33 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 7 March 2016 at 00:24, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 6:19 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> About half the ruby script files use /usr/bin/ruby and the others use
>>> /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1
>>>
>>> I'm not sure it makes sense to force the use of a specif
On 7 March 2016 at 00:24, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 6:19 PM, sebb wrote:
>> About half the ruby script files use /usr/bin/ruby and the others use
>> /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1
>>
>> I'm not sure it makes sense to force the use of a specific ruby
>> version in this way.
>>
>> Would it not b
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 6:19 PM, sebb wrote:
> About half the ruby script files use /usr/bin/ruby and the others use
> /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1
>
> I'm not sure it makes sense to force the use of a specific ruby
> version in this way.
>
> Would it not be better to omit the version suffix, and document th
