On 7-6-2012 21:36, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:58:43 +0200 > Mel Flynn <rfl...@acsalaska.net> mentioned: > >> >> Given issues described with swig 1.x earlier on this list, you may want >> to investigate if swig 1.x should be removed/patched/whatever before >> this sweep. > > Swig 1.x actually works fine with ruby 1.9, I'm using it quite regularly. > SWIG just generate the C source, it does not provide you with include > path. It is a responsibility of the application to find out what the > correct path are. > > You can look at my m4 macro as an example of how to do it properly: > https://github.com/stass/autoconf-macros/blob/master/ax_ruby_ext.m4
Point being, that: a) /usr/local/bin/ruby does not exist and apparently there are some ports that expect it b) if you symlink /usr/local/bin/ruby19 to ruby, that things still don't work for a port I don't think a package that is as widely used as gdal uses broken makefiles, so either: - these are issues with swig as they generate the makefiles (this was my assumption, but your mail tells me it is incorrect) - there are ways used in the wild to obtain ruby build information that no longer work: gmake -f RubyMakefile.mk build -e:1: Use RbConfig instead of obsolete and deprecated Config -- Mel _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
