Am 25.08.2011 16:05, schrieb Jerry:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:47:50 -0400
> Robert Huff articulated:
>
>> Jerry writes:
>>
>>> That did not actually answer my question(s). Exactly why is the
>>> port being reverted to 1.8 as the default;
>>
>> Insufficient testing for whether 1.9 works with
Stanislav Sedov writes:
> Meanwhile, we continue to work on fixing the major issued people
> reported (some portupgrade glitches, ability to use the newer
> ruby-gems under ruby 1.9), and hopefully we'll be able to make it
> default again soon enough.
Is there an estimate - even a ro
On Aug 25, 2011, at 5:01 AM, Jerry wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:41:48 +0100
> Chris Rees articulated:
>
>> Where have you been? Many people had trouble upgrading, asking on
>> this very list about it, then the default switch was reverted, and
>> again announced on this list.
>>
>> Please che
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:47:50 -0400
Robert Huff articulated:
> Jerry writes:
>
> > That did not actually answer my question(s). Exactly why is the
> > port being reverted to 1.8 as the default;
>
> Insufficient testing for whether 1.9 works with ruby-using
> ports.
>
> > and how can I p
On 25 August 2011 13:01, Jerry wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:41:48 +0100
> Chris Rees articulated:
>
>> Where have you been? Many people had trouble upgrading, asking on
>> this very list about it, then the default switch was reverted, and
>> again announced on this list.
>>
>> Please check the
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:41:48 +0100
Chris Rees articulated:
> Where have you been? Many people had trouble upgrading, asking on
> this very list about it, then the default switch was reverted, and
> again announced on this list.
>
> Please check the archive before making more demands on Steve's ti
Jerry writes:
> That did not actually answer my question(s). Exactly why is the port
> being reverted to 1.8 as the default;
Insufficient testing for whether 1.9 works with ruby-using ports.
> and how can I positively ascertain if I have both versions installed?
ls -al /var
On 25 Aug 2011 12:34, "Jerry" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:13:42 -0400
> Steve Wills articulated:
>
> > On 08/25/11 06:43, Jerry wrote:
> > > I probably missed it, but according to the "20110823:" entry in
> > > UPDATING, the ruby port was downgraded to 1.8. My first question is
> > > why?
>
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:13:42 -0400
Steve Wills articulated:
> On 08/25/11 06:43, Jerry wrote:
> > I probably missed it, but according to the "20110823:" entry in
> > UPDATING, the ruby port was downgraded to 1.8. My first question is
> > why?
>
> Only which version is installed by default is chan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/25/11 06:43, Jerry wrote:
> I probably missed it, but according to the "20110823:" entry in
> UPDATING, the ruby port was downgraded to 1.8. My first question is
> why?
Only which version is installed by default is changed back. There are
ports
I probably missed it, but according to the "20110823:" entry in
UPDATING, the ruby port was downgraded to 1.8. My first question is
why? Second, when checking on which version I have installed, this is
the output:
ruby --version
ruby 1.9.2p290 (2011-07-09 revision 32553) [amd64-freebsd8]
I theref
11 matches
Mail list logo
