From owner-freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 17 23:26:52 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939E9106564A for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:26:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from swills@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mouf.net (mouf.net [204.109.58.86]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389538FC14 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from meatwad.mouf.net (cpe-065-190-178-041.nc.res.rr.com [65.190.178.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by mouf.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2HMqGUH086779 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:52:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from swills@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4D8290A0.4010502@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:52:16 -0400 From: Steve Wills User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110130 Thunderbird/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (mouf.net [204.109.58.86]); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:52:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.2 at mouf.net X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Subject: Re: making Ruby 1.9 default 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: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:26:52 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/16/11 07:25, Eric wrote: >> From: paranormal > [SNIP] >> This is good idea. But beautiful port portupgrade :), >> not work with 1.9 version. > > What about ports/144605 - "[PATCH] Get ports-mgmt/portupgrade to build under > Ruby 1.9.1" > > I've not tried it, but does that patch do what it says on the tin? [...] > There are plenty of outstanding PRs regarding portupgrade, which does seem > to suffer from being both loved and unloved (in terms of maintenance). I > personally use it, but am wondering if it's time to switch to Doug's > PortMaster now... However given that portupgrade is often noted in > documentation as almost the default tool for doing upgrades of ports then it > does seem sensible that we should all try our best to fix it. > > I personally think we should still aim to get to the default of 1.9 and > aiming for the 9.0 release seems a sensible target to go for, if part of > that process would seem to be getting portupgrade sorted then so be it. Portupgrade is a bit of a problem. Perhaps it's due to my patches, but at the moment I can't get databases/ruby-bdb to build with RUBY_VER == 1.9. If I could get past that, I could test the above PR. I wonder if anyone else has the same issue. Steve -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNgpCgAAoJEPXPYrMgexuhnJwIAKb6zi1w0lFm8upRzcOC84xx taTI7wNxijVsAlNzWqbL0Py/R30e0q5MihlGJfCBtmDna89b2TO8HgO0Xtiy0AdP pB1bejm0tpyziKaOQTxIsTK5gHo/GcXtTnLQghn7xmdX6Ahyec6PxXjcrX1CeQWC HDRj+tgBOwSLTQ7VXCkbsPCvQRK2M8RT4yYkYskSUYqNmigRCFHgBLuMNbSranaR KtZh9FbfMZqIEkarMxQMqeusewPhI3G/EJTAwtImuYfQectH9rZSClFE66aRzXft DdnupcAyE1DbW4wVR+Jrq3Ek8c1srAWWH1NUY6J/zYZZ1WPqIIOceFteR64MyH8= =a4O3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----