Re: Ruby 1.9.1 package release plan
>>> use alternatives so that the user can select the version of ruby he
>>> wants, but then we would have to fix all the ruby applications that use
>>> /usr/bin/ruby first (so that they hardcode the version of ruby they want
>>> to work with).
>> I don't like alternatives for that usage.
>> Users assume all alternatives works fine with all other programs.
>> (ruby1.9(.0) foo.rb, ruby1.9(.1) foo.rb and ruby1.9(.2) works as the same.)
>> We should have standard "ruby" for users and packages.
>> I think that "/usr/bin/ruby" should be provided by a package
>> such as ruby-default.
> Having packages use /usr/bin/ruby is a problem when we want to switch
> from ruby1.8 to ruby1.9 for /usr/bin/ruby. We should check that every
> package using /usr/bin/ruby works with ruby1.9 first.
But I intended to say that
alternatives is not fit for that usage.
If we proved ruby1.9.x packages and
we use alternatives for all ruby1.9.x,
we should check many packages.