On 06/07/12 17:57, Steve Wills wrote:
>
> This is expected. Try setting RUBY_DEFAULT_VER instead.
>
I probably should have been more clear about this. The ruby ports only
create ${PREFIX}/bin/ruby for the default ruby. So if you have ruby 1.9
installed but it is not the default ruby, you won't h
On Jun 7, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Mel Flynn wrote:
> On 2-6-2012 3:32, Steve Wills wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I think we should try to make Ruby 1.9 the default Ruby again and would
>> like to see it done before 9.1 is released. I've submitted a patch which
>> does this and requested and exp-run from por
On 7-6-2012 21:36, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:58:43 +0200
> Mel Flynn 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
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:58:43 +0200
Mel Flynn 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
On 2-6-2012 3:32, Steve Wills wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I think we should try to make Ruby 1.9 the default Ruby again and would
> like to see it done before 9.1 is released. I've submitted a patch which
> does this and requested and exp-run from portmgr.
This may become obsolete soon, since graphics/g
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:14:06 -0400
Steve Wills mentioned:
>
> From what I saw in your other messages, it sounds like this may be
> specific to the use of mono. Or can you reproduce with another program?
>
Yes, it looks like it can be a mono bug, or unfortunate combination of
what mono and ruby
On 06/05/12 14:00, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> You usually cannot dlopen the object linked agains pthread from a
> non-pthreaded object. Or it is used to be that way.
My understanding is that you can now, IFF your non-threaded object is
built with -pthread.
> Exec should work
> fine, I don't see
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:18:06AM -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> Why do you need this? libpthread.so is exactly libthr right now.
meh. I remembered some threading juggling with libpthread / libthr and
since ldd reported libthr.so I was wondering if the problem was not back
and switching to the
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 20:08:36 +0200
Romain Tartière mentioned:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:01:12AM -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> > Sounds similar. Unfortunately, my app is proprietary. I'll try to
> > prepare some smaller test case today.
>
> Thanks! In the meantime, I am trying to run Bansh
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:01:12AM -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> Sounds similar. Unfortunately, my app is proprietary. I'll try to
> prepare some smaller test case today.
Thanks! In the meantime, I am trying to run Banshee with this in
/etc/libmap.conf:
| [/usr/local/bin/mono]
| libthr.so.3
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:42:09 +0200
Romain Tartière mentioned:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 02:04:33AM -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> > Actually, the problem I'm trying to debug right now is more weird.
> > When I run mono via system(3) from the ruby 1.9 process (I mean,
> > exactly system(3), not vi
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:43:55 -0400
"Steve Wills" mentioned:
> >
>
> Is this perhaps the -pthread issue I hit with perl? The issue is that if
> you call (dlopen, exec, whatever) a threaded app from a non-threaded on,
> it hangs due to the fact that libc takes shortcuts and doesn't initialize
> thr
>
> On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:52 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 08:25:08PM -0400, Steve Wills wrote:
>>> On 06/01/12 22:30, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
I'm not sure it's a good idea.
Ruby 1.9 still has some nasty bugs on FreeBSD, related to the threads
and
>>>
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:42:09AM +0200, Romain Tartière wrote:
> I used to see the mono process in the "STOP" state
oops: read "pause" state!
^T:
> load: 0.07 cmd: mono 46160 [pause] 4854.59r 165.68u 18.57s 0% 169264k
ps l 46160:
> UID PID PPID CPU PRI NIVSZRSS MWCHAN STAT TT TI
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 02:04:33AM -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:52 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 08:25:08PM -0400, Steve Wills wrote:
> >> On 06/01/12 22:30, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure it's a good idea.
> >>> Ruby 1.9
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 02:04:33AM -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> Actually, the problem I'm trying to debug right now is more weird.
> When I run mono via system(3) from the ruby 1.9 process (I mean,
> exactly system(3), not via some ruby wrapper) twice, it hangs on some
> umtx the second time. T
On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:52 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 08:25:08PM -0400, Steve Wills wrote:
>> On 06/01/12 22:30, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure it's a good idea.
>>> Ruby 1.9 still has some nasty bugs on FreeBSD, related to the threads and
>>> fork. That
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 08:25:08PM -0400, Steve Wills wrote:
> On 06/01/12 22:30, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure it's a good idea.
> > Ruby 1.9 still has some nasty bugs on FreeBSD, related to the threads and
> > fork. That is fork in ruby 1.9 hangs sometimes...
>
> The ONLY thing I
On 06/01/12 22:30, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>
> I'm not sure it's a good idea.
> Ruby 1.9 still has some nasty bugs on FreeBSD, related to the threads and
> fork. That is fork in ruby 1.9 hangs sometimes...
The ONLY thing I can find is this:
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/2097
which implies th
On 6/1/2012 9:30 PM, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> I'm not sure it's a good idea.
> Ruby 1.9 still has some nasty bugs on FreeBSD, related to the threads and
> fork. That is fork in ruby 1.9 hangs sometimes...
I ran into the fork() issue last year as well.
However, testing my scripts on 1.9.3 on Fr
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Scot Hetzel wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Jos Backus wrote:
> >> The community is indeed moving to 1.9 and 1.8 is nearing end of life. I
> >> have been using 1.9 on FreeBSD for months now without any
On Jun 2, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Scot Hetzel wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Jos Backus wrote:
>> The community is indeed moving to 1.9 and 1.8 is nearing end of life. I
>> have been using 1.9 on FreeBSD for months now without any issues, and I
>> would suggest we switch and try to iron out
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Jos Backus wrote:
> The community is indeed moving to 1.9 and 1.8 is nearing end of life. I
> have been using 1.9 on FreeBSD for months now without any issues, and I
> would suggest we switch and try to iron out any remaining issues.
>
devel/kdebindings4-ruby-kros
The community is indeed moving to 1.9 and 1.8 is nearing end of life. I
have been using 1.9 on FreeBSD for months now without any issues, and I
would suggest we switch and try to iron out any remaining issues.
Jos
___
freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org mailing lis
e submitted a patch which
>> does this and requested and exp-run from portmgr.
>>
>> I would like to get feedback on this idea. If you have experience with
>> Ruby 1.9 as default, good or bad, please speak up. You can test this by
>> setting RUBY_DEFAULT_VER=1.9
> I would like to get feedback on this idea. If you have experience with
> Ruby 1.9 as default, good or bad, please speak up. You can test this by
> setting RUBY_DEFAULT_VER=1.9 in /etc/make.conf or editing Mk/bsd.ruby.mk
> and setting the same variable there.
>
I'm not sur
Hi All,
I think we should try to make Ruby 1.9 the default Ruby again and would
like to see it done before 9.1 is released. I've submitted a patch which
does this and requested and exp-run from portmgr.
I would like to get feedback on this idea. If you have experience with
Ruby 1.9 as de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
We're pretty much ready to go. Most of the issues that I mentioned in my
previous mail have been fixed. Specifically:
* All Ruby 1.9 incompatible ports have been marked as such. I'll include
the list at the bottom of this email. Would it be helpf
> From: Steve Wills
>
>> Steve Wills schrieb:,
>>
>>> If you'd like to try to fix things, the possibly incomplete and/or
>>> inaccurate list of ports that don't work with 1.9 is:
>>
>> I can't figure out how to add patches to a gem distribution
>> so i can be build under FreeBSD ports again.
>>
On Aug 1, 2011, at 11:50 PM, dirk.me...@dinoex.sub.org (Dirk Meyer) wrote:
> Steve Wills schrieb:,
>
>> If you'd like to try to fix things, the possibly incomplete and/or
>> inaccurate list of ports that don't work with 1.9 is:
>
> I can't figure out how to add patches to a gem distribution
> so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/06/11 22:57, Steve Wills wrote:
> On 07/06/11 22:39, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:28:00 -0400
>> Steve Wills mentioned:
>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In case anyone is interested
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/06/11 22:39, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:28:00 -0400
> Steve Wills mentioned:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In case anyone is interested, here's where we are with migrating to Ruby
>>
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:28:00 -0400
Steve Wills mentioned:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> In case anyone is interested, here's where we are with migrating to Ruby
> 1.9 as the default version:
Thanks for a nice summary. Seems like a lot of work has been done.
So
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
In case anyone is interested, here's where we are with migrating to Ruby
1.9 as the default version:
* Good progress has been made on marking the incompatible ports and we
have deprecated a good number of them. The remaining incompatible ports
wi
34 matches
Mail list logo
