From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Oct 14 16:37:32 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@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 872D4FFF2A for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:37:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46sPNr2p6Mz4YdF for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:37:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 5E393FFF28; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:37:32 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@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 5DE97FFF26; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:37:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46sPNr1qMBz4YdB; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:37:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Received: from icepick.vmeta.jp (unknown [IPv6:2405:6586:2280:1200:87d:dfc1:dc60:387d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: meta/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 77186A312; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:37:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 01:37:26 +0900 From: Koichiro Iwao To: Steve Wills Cc: Mathieu Arnold , FreeBSD Ports , ruby@freebsd.org, Adam Weinberger Subject: Re: FLAVORS for Ruby Message-ID: <20191014163725.ibff4boooir2xqi3@icepick.vmeta.jp> References: <20190913090645.buutinhgh2pygb4h@icepick.vmeta.jp> <20190914042738.r3hedyqtpxsxnd5e@icepick.vmeta.jp> <006FCB74-04EB-4A82-A800-6C7CA273E749@adamw.org> <20190916143929.z6vnzoqjme6vw2ey@icepick.vmeta.jp> <20190916161650.4ofb2o27tfxif57e@icepick.vmeta.jp> <20190917064039.7qhnw3lds2zaxdl5@atuin.in.mat.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 12.1-STABLE amd64 User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:37:32 -0000 On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 07:34:27AM -0400, Steve Wills wrote: > Hi, > > On 9/17/19 2:40 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > > > What we are all trying to say is that adding flavors for ruby will have > > a big impact on build time and ressources required for building. > > > > If all you want is to have ruby flavors for the kicks of it, then I am > > glad to tell you that no, it will not be done. > > > > Now, the question is, why would someone need to have ruby flavors? > > > > The answer cannot be "because it should be fun" or "there is no reason > > there should not be". > > > > Give us a real reason about why it would be required. > > > > We have multiple versions of Ruby, we should provide the gems for each > version. Right now, there is no way for users of Ruby 2.4 to install gem > packages except to change the default ruby and then build their own > packages. We want people to have fewer reasons to build their own packages, > not more. > > We keep the latest Ruby as not default because it tends to have more bugs > and gems lag, and the older version of Ruby is available because some gems > tend to lag really badly. So, users do have legitimate reasons for using the > non-default versions of Ruby. Also, upstream supports latest and two > versions back. > > It wasn't until Ruby 2.6 was out that GitLab even supported 2.5, to give > just one example. > > So, we have those versions of Ruby, and they should be usable, and that > includes installing gems via pkg. > > There's the point that maybe we should only package gems that are needed by > other things, which I can understand, but don't know if I necessarily agree > with, because then you have users confused on what the "right" way to > install a gem is. "Oh, this one is packaged because something else in ports > needs it, so use the pkg, but this other one isn't packaged, so you have to > use gem." > > And I'd think the same applies to python modules or perl modules, etc. One > could ask, why not provide flavors for all versions of python, that is, 3.5, > 3.6 and 3.7, along with the 2.7 ones as well, but to me that doesn't seem > quite necessary because the compatibility is better there, as far as I can > tell. But, I wouldn't be opposed to it personally, if someone did make the > argument in favor of it. Same with Perl and especially things that depend on > Java. > > But that's all beside the point, really. > > Steve Hello again everyone, I'm sorry I cannot express my thoughts correctly in English and I clould not explain why flavors for Ruby required but swills explained far better than me. Based on his explanation, will it be a valid reason to introduce flavors on Ruby ports? -- meta