Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 à 10:58 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > > You are just going to empower users to shoot themselves in the foot. > > What if users want the ability to shoot themselves in the foot? Currently you’re the one holding the weapon. > Also, you seem to assume that Ruby 1.9 is completely broken. That's not > true. A lot of things still work after switching from 1.8 to 1.9. I don’t know whether Ruby 1.9 is broken or not. What I’m sure of, is that with your proposed dependency scheme, you will not be able to ensure dependencies will be installed for Ruby 1.9. Which means changing the Ruby version with alternatives would just break user systems. If users want Ruby 1.9, serve them Ruby 1.9 and get rid of the applications not supporting it (or use explicit versions for them). But don’t serve them a system that is half-compatible with Ruby 1.9 and not up to the stability expectations of a Debian system. If you choose to support several Ruby interpreters through alternatives, you have to specify the interface that /usr/bin/ruby provides, just like for Java. This means settling on the lowest common denominator of what these interpreters can provide - and this is *completely opposite* to the users’ request, since they want to benefit from the improvements in Ruby 1.9. > Anyway. We are early in the wheezy release cycle. If switching ruby > implementations using alternatives turns out to be a bad idea, we can > switch back to the former approach at some point. And we will arguments > to reply to users who currently want it. Do you really need to break hundreds of user systems just to make a handful of whiners happy? > See: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=548917 Proposes a wrong solution without explaining why you’d want to do that - and really, it is stupid. > http://kangaroobox.blogspot.com/2009/12/switching-ruby-platforms-on-debian.html > http://blog.alexn.org/2010/02/working-with-multiple-versions-of.html > http://krnjevic.com/wp/?p=209 These three explain how to break your system. There are thousands of such half-assed “documents”, and we receive many bug reports of users breaking their systems after that. A few days ago, a user complained that his gnome-panel was broken. It turned out he had applied a procedure to install mysql-workbench which just broke his GLib. > http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/209014 > http://fossplanet.com/f10/install-ruby1-9-1-a-96579/ They are just asking for 1.9. Alternatives is the wrong answer to the users’ problem. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ruby-defaults/+bug/634703 If we just applied all user suggestions when they come up, do you know how much buggy Debian would be? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `- […] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part