2011/5/12 Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei / ruby-lang.org>:
>> Even if 1.9.3 is still binary-compatible with 1.9.1, I think that it wou=
ld be easier to change
>
> Easier to whom? =A0You? =A0You know I have compilers so it's 100% OK for =
me to
> recompile my extension libraries, but I think that's not for everyone --
> especially for Windows users. =A0Even if a Windows user had a compiler (r=
are!),
> recompiling an extension lib is painfully slow on that arch. =A0So it's n=
ot
> always "easier".
>
> I know it makes _you_ at ease and I'm not against your motivation. =A0I h=
ope
> there is a good trade-off.
>
>> - enable users to co-install (1.9.1 or 1.9.2) and 1.9.3. In debian, 1.9.=
3 could be provided as a separate ruby1.9.3 package.
>
> Why do debian have to provide a distro-standard way to have multiple ruby=
?
> That is, why you have to retain 1.9.2 installations once after you have 1=
.9.3?

I agree with Shyouhei.
The confusion seems to be not for CRuby but for debian's package.

You posted the plan of future debian's package in Apr 2010, and I replied t=
o it.
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-ruby / lists.debian.org/msg00745.html

Those mails described about this issue and you said as following,
and you finally decided that 1.9.2 will be installed as 1.9.1.
> Ah :-) Would be too easy otherwise. Then it's probably better to handle
> the 1.9.1->1.9.2 transition in the same way as the 1.9.0->1.9.1
> transition.

It is your decision, not ours.

--=20
NARUSE, Yui =A0<naruse / airemix.jp>