Ruby 1.9 port

Caspar Florian Ebeling febeling at
Tue May 27 09:25:54 PDT 2008


I have prepared port for Ruby 1.9. I could just commit it, but I wanted to
hear your opinion on a few things, before these become facts,
on which users might rely.

* Name: I tend to call it ruby19. Another option would be ruby-devel,
but 1.9 is mildly incompatible, and Python ports use a similar approach,
for the same reason, I think. There will probably not be a point in time
when we would want to switch ruby-devel to be the new ruby because
of that, so the version suffixing seems to be appropriate.

* Accordingly, binaries have to be suffixed to be able to live alongside
the established ones. There will be ruby, irb, ri, etc. and ruby1.9, irb1.9,
ri1.9, etc.

* The regular rb-* ports would live in directories which where not visible
in the path, because usually you would run the setup.rb from the old
binary which brings the $Config::CONFIG along, telling it where to
put stuff. So packages would not be found automatically -- a rather
good thing though, given the incompatibilities. Still this port would
trigger need for them, I guess, once it's there.

What do you think about these points? Is there a bigger ruby roadmap
I overlooked, or somebody who coordinates ruby issues? Once something
like "MacPorts Alternatives" is there it might be interesting to have an
overarching ruby abstract port, or whatever it's called then, but that's
quite compatible with this. What do you think?


Florian Ebeling
florian.ebeling at

More information about the macports-dev mailing list