Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:56:36 +0200 From: Siegbert Baude <Siegbert.Baude@gmx.de> To: Kevin Golding <kevin@caomhin.demon.co.uk>, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade + ruby-uri dependency ? Message-ID: <3CC18FB4.94CABFBD@gmx.de> References: <3CBEDA6B.89331503@gmx.de> <200204190946500325.31F509CF@mail.attbi.com> <G%2BrFcjBuNCw8EwKz@freeservesignup.freeserve.co.uk> <200204191021560604.32152D75@mail.attbi.com> <gOIMg$Ah8Cw8EwsG@freeservesignup.freeserve.co.uk> <3CC0C795.A9F5EFCB@gmx.de> <oOFOw8AU0Sw8Ewt$@caomhin.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Kevin, > >> Basically ruby-URI has now been incorporated into the main Ruby package. > >> Just remember that little bit of trivia when you run pkgdb -F and you > >> should be okay. > > > >That is I should point pkgdb -F to the main ruby port or just keep > >things as they are? > > I point things to the main Ruby port usually, but in theory you can just > keep ignoring the warning. As I have a recent enough Ruby to contain > the URI modules I also deleted the Ruby-URI port and haven't had any > problems yet, but that's more up to you. O.k., as somebody told me the compile process of ruby will be small, I deleted the ruby and portupgrade packages and compiled everything from ports. The dependency problem is solved now. No ruby-uri anymore, so no problem to find its origin. :-) > Basically Ruby-URI can be pretty much ignored these days. I've not seen > or heard of any problems regarding it yet although I guess there's > always a first. It really seems to be included in the main ruby. > >As a side note, if there is a change in the strucutre of a port, why > >isn't this reflected in a new package? How long is the normal time to > >go, before a package belonging to a new port will see the light of > >ftp.freebsd.org? > > I'm not really sure to be honest. I don't think that ports really has a > setting to deal with changes as when something is moved it seems to > create an awful lot of confusion. I read the porter's handbook tonight and I found that you shouldn't send any packages to the port maintainers (as they are able to build them themselves). So I wonder who will trigger the creation of a new package and put in on the ftp site. > Certainly using portupgrade doesn't > seem to pick up on much and it's basically just a front end to the main > ports tools. It looks like you can fix a lot of things but removing the > old port and dependencies before putting a new version in but that seems > like more work than ports should require. A correct pkg database is valuable and portupgrade saves you time in keeping it so. Thanks for your input. Ciao SIegbert To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CC18FB4.94CABFBD>