Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 13:23:28 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 199820] [new port] www/rubygem-html-pipeline Message-ID: <bug-199820-13-86XnXxusOw@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/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199820 --- Comment #7 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- Hmm, it would be interesting to know about these 80: 1) are they there to support another port? (if so, which?) 2) the general reason they were there to begin with Yes, this information obviously changes things (bundle could go from 96 to 16) but it also could be an opportunity to contract rubygems. Remember there is a sentiment to get rid of them, so if some portion of the 80 existing ports can be moved to a new bundle port, it would probably be welcome. Extra work, sure. That's why I would be interested in knowing how each of these 80 came to be (obviously rubygems used by another port are not eligible for bundling) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-199820-13-86XnXxusOw>