Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 13:27:38 +0900 From: Koichiro Iwao <meta@FreeBSD.org> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org>, ruby@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FLAVORS for Ruby Message-ID: <20190914042738.r3hedyqtpxsxnd5e@icepick.vmeta.jp> In-Reply-To: <CAP7rwcjH6d7AiEL4XeRyQ-evT=dq%2BZi8WDTx-aYhye-zq2DKJw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20190913074519.xfu3avb4ihmfzm2o@icepick.vmeta.jp> <CAALwa8m3NJSckxSyrVTehx3LWxheSJXxUB=iAxr%2B1HG_2WFtfg@mail.gmail.com> <20190913090645.buutinhgh2pygb4h@icepick.vmeta.jp> <CAP7rwcjH6d7AiEL4XeRyQ-evT=dq%2BZi8WDTx-aYhye-zq2DKJw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 09:33:43AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > Systems MUST be able to support concurrent installations of python2.7 > and actual python. What is your use case for concurrent ruby? I know the importance of Python 2. Even if it is EoL-ed, it will be required over the next a few years because not a few applications don't migrate to Python 3. So that's true and reasonable. Excuse me that I'm answering your question with a question. What about PHP? Concurrent installation is a MUST? FreeBSD ports allows concurrent installations of multiple Ruby versions however doesn't allow concurrent installations of rubygems for multiple Ruby versions. This inconsistency is the issue for me. -- meta <meta@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190914042738.r3hedyqtpxsxnd5e>