FLAVORS for Ruby

[Koichiro Iwao]

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 <meta at FreeBSD.org>