From owner-freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 25 13:28:33 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ruby@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A071065673 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 13:28:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdlists-ruby@chillibear.com) Received: from mail.sundive.org (mail.sundive.org [212.13.197.214]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0A68FC12 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 13:28:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 66.97.113.87.dyn.plus.net ([87.113.97.66] helo=[192.168.0.44]) by sundive.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1QPDub-0006ns-EG; Wed, 25 May 2011 14:14:11 +0100 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.29.0.110113 Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:12:29 +0100 From: Eric To: Steve Wills , "Philip M. Gollucci" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: ruby 1.9 update patch Thread-Index: Acwa3WYaEHso8TYjxEaxu26Ako4FHg== In-Reply-To: <4DDCEDED.9030603@mouf.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam: No X-bounce-key: sundive.org-1; freebsdlists-ruby@chillibear.com; 1306330204; f22d89bb; Cc: ruby@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ruby 1.9 update patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Ruby discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 13:28:33 -0000 > From: Steve Wills > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Thanks for the feedback! > > I was attempting to do some run time testing of this and stumbled upon a > strange issue. It seems that even without my patch (and with it too), if > you do this: > > cd /usr/ports/databases/ruby-bdb > env RUBY_VER=1.9 make install > > on a system without any ruby, it will install Ruby 1.9, then fail to > install the databases/ruby-bdb port since there will not be a "rdoc" > binary installed, but only "rdoc19". My patch doesn't make this worse, > but it doesn't help it either. Should I try to solve this and if so how? > > Steve That cropped up before here: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ruby/2011-March/001169.html I half remember you get a rake19 command, etc when installing Ruby 1.9. You certainly get a ruby18 in /usr/local/bin for 1.8! Anyhow in the 1.9 Ruby Makefile you can see a small snippet of code which currently doesn't do anything, but would symlink those xxx19 scripts to the correct names if the default version was bumped. .if ${RUBY_VER} == ${RUBY_DEFAULT_VER} . for FILE in ${INSTALLED_SCRIPTS} ${LN} -f ${PREFIX}/bin/${FILE}${RUBY_SUFFIX} ${PREFIX}/bin/${FILE} . endfor .endif INSTALLED_SCRIPTS being: irb erb rdoc ri ruby testrb rake gem How that symlinking affects or interferes with some of the gem versions of those I don't know. I suppose we need to decide if the plan is to get the system so that a user could almost choose Ruby 1.8 or 1.9 as a default (Makefile option to do things like those symlinks?) or if we're getting it so that we can just flip the switch (RUBY_DEFAULT_VER) and make 1.9 a default in a future release. That said we'd want to make sure it was fairly trivial for a user to revert to a 1.8 install since it's still a popular version. Also I do keep meaning to test your 1.9 patch and try it out when I get some time! Promise! Regards Eric