From owner-freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 18 03:33:20 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85535106564A; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:33:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stas@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mx0.deglitch.com (backbone.deglitch.com [78.110.53.255]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420658FC14; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:33:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orion.SpringDaemons.com (207.47.0.2.static.nextweb.net [207.47.0.2]) by mx0.deglitch.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 938C78FC36; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 06:17:29 +0300 (MSK) Received: from orion (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by orion.SpringDaemons.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 220E75C38; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:17:15 -0700 From: Stanislav Sedov To: Steve Wills Message-Id: <20110317201715.3bbd1772.stas@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4D8290A0.4010502@FreeBSD.org> References: <4D8290A0.4010502@FreeBSD.org> Organization: The FreeBSD Project X-Mailer: carrier-pigeon Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: making Ruby 1.9 default X-BeenThere: freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Ruby discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:33:20 -0000 On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:52:16 -0400 Steve Wills mentioned: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/16/11 07:25, Eric wrote: > >> 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? > > [...] > > > 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 that portupgrade is often noted in > > documentation as almost the default tool for doing upgrades of ports then it > > does seem sensible that we should all try our best to fix it. > > > > I personally think we should still aim to get to the default of 1.9 and > > aiming for the 9.0 release seems a sensible target to go for, if part of > > that process would seem to be getting portupgrade sorted then so be it. > > Portupgrade is a bit of a problem. Perhaps it's due to my patches, but > at the moment I can't get databases/ruby-bdb to build with RUBY_VER == > 1.9. If I could get past that, I could test the above PR. I wonder if > anyone else has the same issue. > It does not work with 1.9. I submitted some pacthes to fix it, but it's not enough to get it build. IIRC, there were some other problems knu@ mentioned. -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments