> From: Steve Wills
[SNIP]
> Ruby 1.9.x has been the "current stable version" of Ruby (according to
> ruby-lang.org) since April 21, 2009 (at least according to my reading of
> the WebBack machine). It seems to me it would be really nice to get Ruby
> 1.9 as the default version by 9.0. Does that
This is good idea. But beautiful port portupgrade :),
not work with 1.9 version.
I'm ruby programmer and use tags like so:
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/*/rubygem-*}
RUBY_DEFAULT_VER=1.9
.endif
.if ${.CURDIR:M*/*/ruby-*}
RUBY_DEFAULT_VER=1.9
.endif
I think we need update portupgrade before update syste
> From: paranormal
[SNIP]
> This is good idea. But beautiful port portupgrade :),
> not work with 1.9 version.
What about ports/144605 - "[PATCH] Get ports-mgmt/portupgrade to build under
Ruby 1.9.1"
I've not tried it, but does that patch do what it says on the tin?
> I'm ruby programmer and us
On 11:25 Wed 16 Mar , Eric wrote:
> There are plenty of outstanding PRs regarding portupgrade, which does seem
> to suffer from being both loved and unloved (in terms of maintenance). I
> personally use it, but am wondering if it's time to switch to Doug's
> PortMaster now... However given tha
Good Day! I am attempting to install Jobsworth on FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE
(amd64). It requires Ruby 1.9.x.
I attempted to install Ruby and applicable gems via the ports
collection. Suffice to say that this procedure did not work. :-) My
next step was RTFM...
In following the instructions at
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:00:48 -0700
milki mentioned:
> On 11:25 Wed 16 Mar , Eric wrote:
> > There are plenty of outstanding PRs regarding portupgrade, which does seem
> > to suffer from being both loved and unloved (in terms of maintenance). I
> > personally use it, but am wondering if it's
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:21:29 -0700
Glenn mentioned:
> Good Day! I am attempting to install Jobsworth on FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE
> (amd64). It requires Ruby 1.9.x.
>
> I attempted to install Ruby and applicable gems via the ports
> collection. Suffice to say that this procedure did not work. :-
On 13:42 Wed 16 Mar , Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> > I've been hanging out at #bsdports@efnet and I've gathered that is the
> > consensus of committers that portupgrade is no longer maintained and
> > portmaster is the preferred tool. The docs need some patching to reflect
> > this.
> >
>
> It's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Martin,
On 03/16/11 00:46, Martin Wilke wrote:
> I'd like to say come up with patches, and let see how the result is. If
> it works
> i vote +1 to make it default.
Of course, you are right, the results are all that matter. I just wanted
to ensure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/16/11 22:54, Steve Wills wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 03/16/11 00:46, Martin Wilke wrote:
>> I'd like to say come up with patches, and let see how the result is. If
>> it works
>> i vote +1 to make it default.
>
> Of course, you are right, the re
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:31:36 -0700
milki mentioned:
> On 13:42 Wed 16 Mar , Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> > > I've been hanging out at #bsdports@efnet and I've gathered that is the
> > > consensus of committers that portupgrade is no longer maintained and
> > > portmaster is the preferred tool. Th
11 matches
Mail list logo
