From owner-freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 25 11:54:25 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 5081C1065679 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 11:54:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from steve@mouf.net) Received: from mouf.net (mouf.net [204.109.58.86]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169238FC2B for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 11:54:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from meatwad.mouf.net (cpe-065-190-149-241.nc.res.rr.com [65.190.149.241]) (authenticated bits=0) by mouf.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4PBsLBB012272 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 May 2011 07:54:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from steve@mouf.net) Message-ID: <4DDCEDED.9030603@mouf.net> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 07:54:21 -0400 From: Steve Wills User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110323 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Philip M. Gollucci" References: <4DD47A2B.8070905@mouf.net> <4DD583F0.7030308@p6m7g8.com> In-Reply-To: <4DD583F0.7030308@p6m7g8.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 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]); Wed, 25 May 2011 07:54:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.2 at mouf.net X-Virus-Status: Clean 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 11:54:25 -0000 -----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 On 05/19/11 16:56, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > On 05/19/11 02:02, Steve Wills wrote: > The diff, and suggested progression seem rational and right to me. I've > only read the diff though, not tried it. > >> gems and rake from ports for Ruby 1.9, just like we do for 1.8. This is >> needed because some gems need the newer gems and rake. >> >> - From there, making Ruby 1.9 default will be as simple as >> finding/fixing/marking the rest of the things that don't work with it, >> then flipping the default in bsd.ruby.mk. >> >> Any comments would be appreciated! >> >> Thanks, >> Steve -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN3O3tAAoJEPXPYrMgexuhsFwIAKUd5HguUoNLG7hjE34YgvQ2 nlKirRYofGFDLy/dEqo5DQkhG5NmrK3yZ7DueZN/Ykcd0HZnVwVS+gR+n9++Cvt5 uVw8MuA8B8/Ye/of/eTvj8jIcPZ5AUwMfjCE2qWYlrnj+6yxTX4JTf+8yz7bGi67 guv2W+1zSQw8Q1NRFaydqUi2Sw3DqDGgvT+sZGgLmTsOBFEpG3QTo3t6ZGbwv7uY zm3hypQv7NuC7twkbwTh5mgP6ro9S24Un47pa9Dy1BCJcsO3aBImApQ7lR6exwRC IP5dC+FMIvb37neqlMug663a2NpF5fq3SOBxHE4/BkB6imT/FNamIZQlmXe30T8= =/5wl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----