From owner-freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org Sat Sep 14 06:39:25 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ruby@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CFFEE9DA9 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 06:39:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from antoine.brodin.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46VjXY0xZrz4bPn for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 06:39:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from antoine.brodin.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 1FFE0E9DA6; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 06:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ruby@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FAAAE9DA5; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 06:39:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from antoine.brodin.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qk1-f194.google.com (mail-qk1-f194.google.com [209.85.222.194]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46VjXY004qz4bPm; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 06:39:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from antoine.brodin.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: by mail-qk1-f194.google.com with SMTP id u186so6849117qkc.5; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:39:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sKXbrFnVcOQBlUzVDhBKXyPIx5nCG6mUE+lJf87+CjY=; b=M86/uI9PkKh3BMo7L/LhWQPYHKyEEPYyHSMFrxsMURuqgAXTIvr1z4Lyw9urTE+9Cy 2DjMCS3XCrYQm85R9u3J/85m9lFAGMUPHwNdX99okyaYoSCmDr4/9uN+RcjnLThpLmr3 Q6fj5p67YX9WpwkhKIC8LpEYwOmwrlJpHdK1hU9kAyGL1dfN5Z1PmW+cHRxMIfbzmImD 1X8ZwGJMxEvMwnTOLJoOUCCmxGiS+jgBGCc4AKdLQvpkhLorH7sI8sA9BcmYC1iWMe65 DDSmyDYsHl4fja7GMDh7tjrv71HYhD1QfNDecWo7JPJ2BleID8jR8e7UwoZqE3PZp10i Jecw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWO6e/4uxkc3y68DJPgNy9srPybNX1kJysl76sPCXAN+JsJ5rSe JPolD4o3CtjV0yLABA24LE8klwdvifMnhKImDCSJuQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyilD9RmxlV3RazLXT7myZOLU1yF7dihMLcSD+U4IWf9smYSRYoTwU7TmMT94OVHzbJXt/bM3eYDUuJSD9c7Zc= X-Received: by 2002:a37:a48b:: with SMTP id n133mr44740475qke.398.1568443163546; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:39:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190913074519.xfu3avb4ihmfzm2o@icepick.vmeta.jp> <20190913090645.buutinhgh2pygb4h@icepick.vmeta.jp> <20190914042738.r3hedyqtpxsxnd5e@icepick.vmeta.jp> In-Reply-To: <20190914042738.r3hedyqtpxsxnd5e@icepick.vmeta.jp> From: Antoine Brodin Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 08:39:12 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FLAVORS for Ruby To: Koichiro Iwao Cc: Adam Weinberger , FreeBSD Ports , ruby@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46VjXY004qz4bPm X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.00 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Ruby discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 06:39:25 -0000 On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 6:27 AM Koichiro Iwao wrote: > 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. This isn't a valid reason for me. Why do you need ruby version 2.4 or 2.5 concurrently installed with version 2.6? Is there a bug in version 2.6? Cheers, Antoine