Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:44:29 +0200 From: paranormal <akabsd@yandex.ru> To: Steve Wills <swills@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ruby@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: making Ruby 1.9 default Message-ID: <1300272269.1973.16.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <4D7FEFC5.6050203@FreeBSD.org> References: <4D7FEFC5.6050203@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 system ruby.
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 19:01 -0400, Steve Wills wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> 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 seem reasonable to everyone
> else? If so, I'd like to do some work towards making that happen. My
> current thoughts on what a plan would be are:
>
> * Build all ruby dependent ports - already in progress in my tinderbox
> * Identify ports which don't build with RUBY_VER == 1.9
> * Add the usual lines to prevent them from trying to build with RUBY_VER
> == 1.9:
>
> .if ${RUBY_VER} == 1.9
> BROKEN= does not work with ruby 1.9
> .endif
>
> * Try to identify ports which don't build with 1.9 which may have an
> update available which will allow them to build with 1.9 and update
> those. I've already got some updates for the ruby-gnome stuff ready to
> commit.
>
> * From those that remain, determine if a fix is available or attempt to
> fix them.
>
> * From those that can't be fixed, determine if they are important enough
> to hold up switching the default. Some I've found have no home page,
> don't seem useful enough to keep in the tree or looks as though they are
> no longer maintained and will not get the changes needed to work with 1.9.
>
> * Request -exp run with RUBY_DEFAULT_VER?= 1.9 and perhaps repeat the
> process if anything surprising is found.
>
> Am I crazy? Barking up the wrong tree, etc? Any input would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNf+/FAAoJEPXPYrMgexuh6QoH/jMcgArhx6z0/2/RfZRLTu/f
> GnuOusNc1DjAXnxYOPUX1C6GL5XfyxMSEFBKlH/US8j5LvejHoJ1vl/wtnfM39iV
> JK8cZgYpXxFa/Xvxp/5Zh0P7BE1KfPBT1UhpJNy1vxKUfccHhL9Wkp7/S1PHq0K2
> XUmY44TA1CfXgs4neFDqVM/Vbg1aTQpqlvFHtw0ldv7UZgrgHzb/DqFDXYboETz7
> 3GZQvhbUGky91EeO5EaAqLD7pgKI5oNu/pXgxQC+YDm5kuWaCOG2qROK5j8D6pNV
> JTERnKkVEezrOroJn79xRdkURX4KqAGT2sy15epZS62ba+B7g1g3c+0Q8Af1BtI=
> =tKU2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ruby
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ruby-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1300272269.1973.16.camel>