Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 à 11:40 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > Note that, for applications written in Ruby and packaged in Debian, we > will make sure that they work no matter what /usr/bin/ruby points to (if > necessary, by forcing the shebang to ruby1.8, and installing the correct > dependencies). What might break is software manually installed by users. > I don't see how that situation is different from the Java one. Except that for Java, there’s a clear specification of what a JVM should provide - and it’s already insanely complex. If you manage to get everything working with both ruby1.8 and ruby1.9, this looks like a great deal of work for nothing; if everything can work with 1.9, just ship it as default and get done with it. > > Do you really need to break hundreds of user systems just to make a > > handful of whiners happy? > > I am under the impression that it's not "a handful of whiners", but that > the consensus in the Ruby community is that we should switch to > alternatives. It looks to me that “the Ruby community” doesn’t understand what alternatives are nor what they were designed for. You need to understand what the real needs of your users are and provide them with a proper solution according to our standards. Just because some people heard of this alternative thing doesn’t mean it is a suitable solution for Debian. -- .''`. 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