[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ruby changes for Wheezy

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

Reply to: