Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:16:56 -0600 From: Tillman Hodgson <tillman@seekingfire.com> To: FreeBSD-Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Ruby 1.6.8.2003.10.15_1 publicity Message-ID: <20040227171656.GJ87391@seekingfire.com> In-Reply-To: <p06020490bc65293bd5f2@[128.113.24.47]> References: <20040227163743.GF87391@seekingfire.com> <p06020490bc65293bd5f2@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 12:08:53PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 10:37 AM -0600 2/27/04, Tillman Hodgson wrote: > >Howdy folks, > > > >This morning I portupgraded two servers to ruby-1.6.8.2003.10.15_1 > >from ruby-1.6.8.2003.10.15). Since then, ruby appears to have died: > > > ># portversion -v > >-bash: /usr/local/sbin/portversion: /usr/local/bin/ruby: bad > >interpreter: No such file or directory > > > >Yet `pkg_info ruby-1.6.8.2003.10.15_1` shows that the package is installed. > > I have not looked into this, but one of my friends says the basic > problem is that RUBY_DEFAULT_VER has changed, and thus the ruby 1.6 > port only installs /usr/local/bin/ruby16, and does not also install > /usr/local/bin/ruby > > One quick fix for this would be to make a symlink from the missing > file to the installed file. I'm sure it isn't the most perfect fix, > but it's the quickest! :-) The commit message (copy at http://www.freshports.org/lang/ruby16/) shows what seems to be a proper way to fix it. At least, it worked on the 1st server that I tried it on (though it's a bit of a lengthy process on slower CPUs). I'm more concerned about the publicity ... this is likely to bite a *lot* of portupgrade users, and a commit message isn't the first place I'd expect casual FreeBSD users to look ;-) -T -- Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040227171656.GJ87391>