From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 24 21:35:09 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43ED16A40F for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:35:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bennett@cs.niu.edu) Received: from mp.cs.niu.edu (mp.cs.niu.edu [131.156.145.41]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C2E13C46E for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:35:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bennett@cs.niu.edu) Received: from mp.cs.niu.edu (bennett@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mp.cs.niu.edu (8.14.0.Beta3/8.14.0.Beta3) with ESMTP id kBOLYsjk022300; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 15:34:54 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 15:34:53 -0600 (CST) From: Scott Bennett Message-Id: <200612242134.kBOLYr7A022299@mp.cs.niu.edu> To: parv@pair.com Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is it safe to upgrade ruby18? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:35:09 -0000 On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 Parv wrote: >in message <20061224031147.GF756@pubbox.net>, >wrote Armin Arh thusly... >> >> On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 08:21:22PM -0600, Scott Bennett wrote: >> > The portmanager program wants to upgrade ruby18. Is is safe to >> > let it? I made the mistake of trying to do a "portupgrade ruby18" under >> good question. >> As ruby is crucial to the portmanager special care should be taken. > >Ruby is CRUCIAL for things portupgrade but not portmanager. For the portupgrade (a.k.a. portinstall) is a ruby18 script, so, yes, ruby18 is necessary for that. I hadn't noticed that portmanager doesn't appear to need it, so thanks for pointing that out. >latter a C compiler, make, etc. is needed, which FreeBSD already >provides. portmanager OPTIONALLY needs ruby to convert >pkgtools.conf (portupgrade) to its configuration format (by way of >running pkgtools-to-portmanager.rb). > Really? How does it do that? The string "ruby" doesn't appear in the portmanager binary anywhere. Neither does "pkg", "port", "tool", or "rb". > >> Good luck there are almost no dependencies for ruby itself: > >Indeed, unlike python or the pig that is gnome. > Okay, but if the make fails somewhere, how do I recover the version of ruby18 and any associated files that is currently installed? Also, does anyone know how to fix the problem I described previously with python24 and glitz? It's a pity that the packages-and-ports system is so fragile, but I'd like to know how to nurse if back to health for now. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************