Subject: Re: pkg/29227
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Takahiro Kambe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/26/2005 01:16:48
In message <Pine.NEB.email@example.com>
on Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:13:58 +0900 (JST),
Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Takahiro Kambe wrote:
> > It isn't the problem of ruby-iconv package itself. On some platforms
> > (including NetBSD 1.6.x), it needs additional iconv package. The same
> > way, ruby-curses package needs additional ncurses package. (And some
> > of NetBSD's ports have limited size of disk space.)
> Yes, I understand that. And while I would find ruby without iconv on
> NetBSD 1.6 annoying, I can understand an argument for not having it.
So, for these environment, separated pacakge is easy to manage.
> I just think it's a very bad situation when the OS has iconv, ruby has
> iconv, a "./configure && make" with an unmodified untar of the source
> installs iconv, and yet our package system doesn't.
Yes, I know what you want to say.
> BTW, why are we bothering to keep ruby16? Not that it's any skin off my
> nose, but it seems like a lot of extra work for no real gain. Ruby 1.8
> has been through three releases now, and I doubt it has any bugs that
> 1.6 doesn't.
Yes, Ruby 1.6 is almost EOL. I'll remove it after next pkgsrc branch.
One of merit is making Ruby package's frame really work with two
different release. And one more point is that the spec of Ruby's
language (and its standard library) compatibility. I think there
should be fairly longer period to coexist. (Yes, but this period is
Takahiro Kambe <email@example.com>