From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May  6 10:13:00 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C477C54
 for <freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org>; Wed,  6 May 2015 10:13:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26F3F1FEC
 for <freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org>; Wed,  6 May 2015 10:13:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118])
 by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t46AD0Fh014953
 for <freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 6 May 2015 10:13:00 GMT
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 199820] [new port] www/rubygem-html-pipeline
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 10:13:00 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages
X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s)
X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People
X-Bugzilla-Who: marino@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: New
X-Bugzilla-Priority: ---
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-199820-13-vuqJ1ERGTP@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-199820-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-199820-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ports bug reports <freebsd-ports-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports-bugs>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports-bugs>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 10:13:00 -0000

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199820

--- Comment #3 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> ---
it sounds like a nightmare.  People are asking for rubygems to be removed in
general since they can be installed from outside ports.

Can't you package all 96 rubygems in a single port?  So they can be installed /
removed together?  Who wants to commit ~100 ports just to get gitlab?  (e.g.
why is it vital to have gitlab in ports?)

I'd recommend thinking about how to make this maintainable because right now it
looks awful.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.