On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:19:03PM +0100, Cédric Boutillier wrote: > Hi John, > > Le 2014-03-27 11:07, John Leach a écrit : > > > > >thanks Hleb, > > > >I was interested in specifically why it was decided that the ruby > >versions should no longer be switchable (or if they are still switchable > >in some way, why it was decided not to use the alternatives system). > > > >Thanks, > > > >John. > > When wheezy was released, a lot of people/applications were still using > ruby1.8, although ruby1.9 was already out for some time. It made sense then > to stills support ruby1.8 and ruby1.9, especially because the changes > between ruby1.8 and ruby1.9 were quite disruptive. > This is not the case for later releases of Ruby, and transitions to ruby2.0, > and 2.1 are supposed to be a lot smoother. > > > Given that: > - the compatibility between subsequent releases significantly increased > - the support upstream for a given version is considerably shorter than for > 1.8 for example > it makes more sense to support a unique version of the interpreter, which > will be the one supported upstream more or less during the life cycle of the > next release, and to force at the system level a unique Ruby version for all > Ruby applications. See also https://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2014/02/msg00014.html -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature