From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May  6 13:23:28 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35A9DB2C
 for <freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org>; Wed,  6 May 2015 13:23:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FC2E15E5
 for <freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org>; Wed,  6 May 2015 13:23:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118])
 by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t46DNRrK008036
 for <freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 6 May 2015 13:23:27 GMT
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 199820] [new port] www/rubygem-html-pipeline
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 13:23:28 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages
X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s)
X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People
X-Bugzilla-Who: marino@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: New
X-Bugzilla-Priority: ---
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-199820-13-86XnXxusOw@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-199820-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-199820-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ports bug reports <freebsd-ports-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports-bugs>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports-bugs>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 13:23:28 -0000

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199820

--- Comment #7 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> ---
Hmm, it would be interesting to know about these 80:

1) are they there to support another port?  (if so, which?)
2) the general reason they were there to begin with

Yes, this information obviously changes things (bundle could go from 96 to 16)
but it also could be an opportunity to contract rubygems.  Remember there is a
sentiment to get rid of them, so if some portion of the 80 existing ports can
be moved to a new bundle port, it would probably be welcome.

Extra work, sure.  That's why I would be interested in knowing how each of
these 80 came to be (obviously rubygems used by another port are not eligible
for bundling)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.