2013/3/26 Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org>:
> On 2013/03/26 13:48, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
>> 2013/3/26 Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org>:
>> > On 2013/03/26 13:35, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
>> >> This allows to fix more stuff, e.g.:
>> >>
>> >> #!/usr/bin/ruby => #!/usr/local/bin/ruby19
>> >>
>> >> Used to fix stuff in texlive_base.
>> >>
>> >> This needs to go through a full bulk build first. Landry? :)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Index: ruby.port.mk
>> >> ===================================================================
>> >> RCS file: /cvs/ports/lang/ruby/ruby.port.mk,v
>> >> retrieving revision 1.60
>> >> diff -u -p -r1.60 ruby.port.mk
>> >> --- ruby.port.mk 20 Mar 2013 19:13:50 -0000 1.60
>> >> +++ ruby.port.mk 26 Mar 2013 09:32:08 -0000
>> >> @@ -252,7 +252,8 @@ TEST_DEPENDS+= ${MODRUBY_RSPEC_DEPENDS}
>> >> TEST_DEPENDS+= ${MODRUBY_RSPEC2_DEPENDS}
>> >> .endif
>> >>
>> >> -MODRUBY_RUBY_ADJ= perl -pi -e 's,/usr/bin/env ruby,${RUBY},'
>> >> +MODRUBY_RUBY_ADJ= perl -pi -e 's,/usr/bin/env ruby,${RUBY},;' \
>> >> + -e 's,/usr/bin/ruby([\s]+.*)?,${RUBY}\1,'
>> >> MODRUBY_ADJ_FILES?=
>> >> .if !empty(MODRUBY_ADJ_FILES)
>> >> MODRUBY_ADJ_REPLACE= for pat in ${MODRUBY_ADJ_FILES:QL}; do \
>> >>
>> >
>> > Do we want to restrict this to the first lines in the file, like in
>> > tcl.port.mk?
>>
>> Well, MOD_ADJ_FILES is already different from other modules enough: it
>> accepts file name patterns searched through the whole WRKSRC instead
>> of just file names/patterns. But I don't want to fix that for now.
>>
>> I'm doubt this will cost more speed: ruby files are usually small, and
>> I/O is slow itself. But I could not prove myself with numbers. Anyway,
>> this is how things are working now, so more changes should be done
>> separately...
>
> My thought is not so much about speed, it's about patching unexpected
> instances of the text. I do wonder why it isn't restricted to #! lines too
> actually.
Probably this is not a such bad idea, to fix calls to ruby interpreter, too...
> A bulk build won't detect whether this changes packages (and so requiring
> a REVISION bump).
Yeah. :( I'll try to check all packages, though.
--
WBR,
Vadim Zhukov
