Paul van Tilburg escreveu isso aí: > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 04:23:04PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 29/01/11 at 08:03 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > > 0) (native) "libs are named ruby1.8-foo, ruby1.9.1-foo, etc. and provide ruby-foo" > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > So we have 2 cases, which we could handle like this: > > > > > > a) only native code: > > > > > > Packages: ruby1.8-foo, ruby-1.9.1 etc > > > > > > All of them must provide ruby-foo > > > > > > b) both pure-ruby and native code > > > > > > Packages: > > > ruby-foo - contains pure-ruby code > > > ruby1.8-foo - contains native code for ruby1.8 > > > ruby1.9.1-foo - contains native code for ruby1.9.1 > > > > > > ruby1.8-foo and ruby1.9.1-foo (etc) depend on ruby-foo > > > > > > ruby-foo depend on the version for the default interpreter (so that > > > installing ruby-foo will get you something that words) > > > > I think that we should go for this. > > I agree partially. > In case (b) indeed, ruby-foo gives something that works, which is great. > But for case (a), IMO a far more often occurring case, it doesn't work. > Installing ruby-foo will make apt* return: what do you want? We could then make ruby-foo always depend on the version for the (current) default Ruby interpreter, so that installing ruby-foo will install something that works in both cases (which is what we have now). -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org> http://softwarelivre.org/terceiro
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature