[MacPorts] #18314: ruby19 nosuffix variant

[Jonathon Brenner]

I used a "conflicts ruby" directive to prevent problems when the 1.8 port is
active on a system. Would that work? I'm new to macports and wasn't sure
whether the directive signals conflicts with other ports or just variants.
Why would the variant get lost with the next update?

As for the reason behind it, I am running 1.9 exclusively and prefer to have
no program suffix. I thought the variant was a clean and appropriate way to
accomplish that without managing symlinks to each binary distributed with
the package (ruby, rdoc, rake, gem, ri, etc.).

Jon

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM, MacPorts <noreply at macports.org> wrote:

> #18314: ruby19 nosuffix variant
>
> ----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  jonbrenner@…          |       Owner:  febeling@…
>      Type:  enhancement           |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  Normal                |   Milestone:  Port Enhancements
> Component:  ports                 |     Version:  1.7.0
>  Keywords:  ruby19 suffix         |        Port:  ruby19
>
> ----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
>
> Comment(by febeling@…):
>
>  There are 2 reasons why I'm not so fond of that idea:
>
>  - It would conflict with ruby 1.8 port
>  - As things are, the variant would be lost with the next update, and that
>  would mean the names of executables change with an upgrade.
>
>  Are there strong reasons to add this still?
>
> --
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.macports.org/ticket/18314#comment:2>
> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
> Ports system for Mac OS
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20090201/ad490eab/attachment.html>