On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 05:57:26PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 16:21:53 +0200:
> > On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 04:03:34PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > stsp_at_apache.org wrote on Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:11:02 -0000:
> > > > -AC_PATH_PROGS(RUBY, ruby1.8 ruby18 ruby, none)
> > > > +AC_PATH_PROGS(RUBY, $RUBY ruby, none)
> > >
> > > Could you re-add ruby1.8? I added it because in some environment I had
> > > no 'ruby' binary but did have a 'ruby1.8' binary...
> >
> > And 'env RUBY=ruby1.8 ./configure' is not good enough?
> > Some people have ruby18, or ruby1.9, or ruby19, or in the future
> > maybe even ruby2020 or whatever. Why special-case one of these
> > in the configure script?
>
> I didn't suggest special-casing them: if the bindings are compatible
> with 1.9, we could use
>
> AC_PATH_PROGS(RUBY, $RUBY ruby ruby1.9 ruby1.8, none)
Then why add not ruby19 and ruby18 as well?
This is system-specific stuff that needs to be configurable, not
hard-coded in our scripts.
The list of rubys is going to grow over time and I don't think that's
a good idea. I'm glad Arfrever pointed out a way to avoid this problem.
Received on 2011-06-05 17:08:11 CEST