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@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>