On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:54:21PM -0500, Michael Sharp wrote:
pkgdb is still looking for /usr/local/bin/ruby which after the upgrade
dosent exist. Its now /usr/local/bin/ruby16
ln -s /usr/local/bin/ruby16 /usr/local/bin/ruby
fixes pkgdb and portsdb
Did you report this to the portupgrade
pkgdb is still looking for /usr/local/bin/ruby which after the upgrade
dosent exist. Its now /usr/local/bin/ruby16
ln -s /usr/local/bin/ruby16 /usr/local/bin/ruby
fixes pkgdb and portsdb
michael
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Michael Sharp wrote:
pkgdb is still looking for /usr/local/bin/ruby which after the upgrade
dosent exist. Its now /usr/local/bin/ruby16
ln -s /usr/local/bin/ruby16 /usr/local/bin/ruby
fixes pkgdb and portsdb
I'm setting up a new 5.2.1-RELEASE system and was concerned about this,
as I was about
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:59:28PM -0500, Shaun T. Erickson wrote:
Michael Sharp wrote:
pkgdb is still looking for /usr/local/bin/ruby which after the upgrade
dosent exist. Its now /usr/local/bin/ruby16
ln -s /usr/local/bin/ruby16 /usr/local/bin/ruby
fixes pkgdb and portsdb
I'm
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:13:54PM -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
Probably not..the update to which you refer was committed earlier
today.
It looks like ruby has been updated to 1.8 and we have a situation like
gettext. I deleted ruby-* and portupgrade and reinstalled portupgrade.
The
On Thursday 26 February 2004 09:15 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:13:54PM -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
Probably not..the update to which you refer was committed earlier
today.
It looks like ruby has been updated to 1.8 and we have a situation
like gettext. I deleted
On Thursday 26 February 2004 09:02 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:59:28PM -0500, Shaun T. Erickson wrote:
Michael Sharp wrote:
pkgdb is still looking for /usr/local/bin/ruby which after the
upgrade dosent exist. Its now /usr/local/bin/ruby16
ln -s
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:03:36PM -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
On Thursday 26 February 2004 09:15 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:13:54PM -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
Probably not..the update to which you refer was committed earlier
today.
It looks like ruby has