From owner-freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org Mon Sep 16 14:39:33 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 EB70B123F70 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:39:33 +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 46X85d5pLgz3GPJ for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:39:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id C72B2123F6D; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:39:33 +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 C6DE9123F6C; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:39:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (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 46X85d4wRBz3GPH; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:39:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Received: from icepick.vmeta.jp (unknown [IPv6:2405:6586:2280:1200:c05f:f3ff:f812:e85a]) (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 6C656CA0F; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:39:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from meta@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 23:39:29 +0900 From: Koichiro Iwao To: Adam Weinberger Cc: FreeBSD Ports , ruby@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FLAVORS for Ruby Message-ID: <20190916143929.z6vnzoqjme6vw2ey@icepick.vmeta.jp> References: <20190913074519.xfu3avb4ihmfzm2o@icepick.vmeta.jp> <20190913090645.buutinhgh2pygb4h@icepick.vmeta.jp> <20190914042738.r3hedyqtpxsxnd5e@icepick.vmeta.jp> <006FCB74-04EB-4A82-A800-6C7CA273E749@adamw.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <006FCB74-04EB-4A82-A800-6C7CA273E749@adamw.org> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 12.1-PRERELEASE amd64 User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:39:34 -0000 On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 10:52:45AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > The issue is that FLAVORS has added a substantial (and painful) complexity to python ports and python.mk. It means that a number of people have had to be hyper-vigilant and watch commits closely to catch errors introduced when people utilize the paradigm incorrectly. It’s a bitter pill, but it’s accepted because the use-case for multiple concurrent python versions is essential. > > As Antoine said, inconsistency isn’t a strong enough use case. Which brings us back to the original question: is there a specific use-case for concurrent ruby that makes the substantial increase in cognitive load, complexity, and monitoring worth it? PHP also have FLAVORS. What about PHP? Multiple concurrent PHP versions is essential? -- meta