Re: FLAVORS for Ruby

Hi, On 9/17/19 2:40 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: What we are all trying to say is that adding flavors for ruby will have a big impact on build time and ressources required for building. If all you want is to have ruby flavors for the kicks of it, then I am glad to tell you that no, it will not

Re: Request to change ruby default version to 2.5

Hi, Yeah, it's fine, do it, just be sure to add an UPDATING entry similar to previous entries for changing ruby default version. Steve On 4/19/19 9:17 AM, Matthias Fechner wrote: Hi Steve, Am 19.04.2019 um 15:06 schrieb Steve Wills: Yeah, there was an exp-run for it: https

Re: Request to change ruby default version to 2.5

Hi, Yeah, there was an exp-run for it: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233901 There are only 2 things to fix now and you can mark those broken with 2.5 if they are not already and do it. I should have done it in January, but was waiting for other things such as GitLab to

Re: [CFT] Bringing in Puppet 5

Yeah, sounds fine to me. > On Jul 19, 2017, at 05:58, Romain Tartière wrote: > > Hi Steve, > > I was thinking about also moving the mcollective* ports under the > puppet@ hat. Do you think it makes sense? > > Romain > > -- > Romain Tartière

Re: [CFT] Bringing in Puppet 5

Given there are 3 committers involved with puppet stuff (Romain, Tom, and now Zach), perhaps changes from non-committers will get reviewed fairly quickly and the git repo won't be needed? Steve On 07/18/2017 10:51, Tom Judge wrote: > I'm happy to move these (my ports) to puppet@ however I would

Re: Help needed: net/rubygem-grpc

Copying him so he can reply if his changes to boringssl require changes to the versions of grpc and rubygem-grpc ports that link against the shared boringssl. Steve > 2017-06-30 0:11 GMT+08:00 Steve Wills <st...@mouf.net > <mailto:st...@mouf.net>>: > > Hi, > >

Re: Help needed: net/rubygem-grpc

Hi, On 06/28/2017 14:08, Matthias Fechner wrote: > Thanks Steve, > > I already added it into our repository we work with: > http://gitlab.toco-domains.de/FreeBSD/GitLab/commits/9.1 > > I hope that is ok for you? > My poudiere is just building and I think it will take the full night: >

Re: Help needed: net/rubygem-grpc

void using the bundled boringssl as long as grpc is using it's bundled boringssl (which I think it should not do, but it does currently do). Steve On 06/28/2017 13:03, Steve Wills wrote: > Hi, > > On 06/28/2017 11:54, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: >> >> >> On 28.06.2017 17:41,

Re: Help needed: net/rubygem-grpc

Hi, On 06/28/2017 11:54, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: > > > On 28.06.2017 17:41, Matthias Fechner wrote: >> Hi Steve, >> >> >> regarding the comment here: >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitaly/issues/154#note_33314534 >> >> I think gitlab should work with version 1.4.0, but I think a test is >>

Re: [patch] Fix ruby2[123] plist for CAPIDOCS set

Hi, On 02/13/2017 04:05, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 01:22:15PM -0500, Steve Wills wrote: >> On 02/10/2017 12:16, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: >>> {{{ >>> $ pkg query %v doxygen >>> 1.8.10_3,2 >> >> That explains it. Upgrade to 1.8.12,

Re: [patch] Fix ruby2[123] plist for CAPIDOCS set

Hi, On 02/10/2017 12:16, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:19:15AM -0500, Steve Wills wrote: >> On 02/10/2017 09:46, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: >>> >>> No, in a plain system. Via >>> {{{ >>> make -C /usr/ports/lang/ruby22 all deins

Re: [patch] Fix ruby2[123] plist for CAPIDOCS set

Hi, On 02/10/2017 09:46, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > > No, in a plain system. Via > {{{ > make -C /usr/ports/lang/ruby22 all deinstall install clean > }}} What version of doxygen are you using? Can you show me the indication of the plist issue? >>> Do you have an example content from the files

Re: [patch] Fix ruby2[123] plist for CAPIDOCS set

Hi, On 02/10/2017 09:31, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > Had you made your last attempt with CAPIDOCS engaged? Yep, specifically tested that. > I had noticed > this problem around a month ago for the first time, though I hadn't > been building Ruby-related stuff for a while on it. How did you

Re: [patch] Fix ruby2[123] plist for CAPIDOCS set

Hi, On 02/10/2017 09:01, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > Gentlemen, good day. > > The patch at > http://codelabs.ru/fbsd/ports/patches/ruby-22-23-fix-CAPI-plist.patch > fixes CAPIDOCS case for the current Ruby ports. Checked its applicability > to all current on/off combination of doc-related knobs

Re: PREFIX enviroment variable pollutes gem search path

Hi, On 01/03/2017 14:22, José G. Juanino wrote: > Hi Steve, > > it breaks some custom code; no port is affected, I think. Ok, good to know. > But if you run > *any* ruby dependent port polluted with PREFIX environment variable, and > that port requires some other gem, it will fails at the

Re: PREFIX enviroment variable pollutes gem search path

Hi, On 01/03/2017 09:27, José G. Juanino wrote: >> In short: you cannot load any gem if your environment contains the >> PREFIX variable. When this happens, ruby uses the assigned value >> instead of /usr/local to search the proper files. This breaks a lot of >> existent code. >> >> The relevant

Re: Feature-Request: pessimistic operator in ports-tree

Hi, On 09/28/2016 03:04, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: > Aloha, > > i'm working quite a while on the ruby-ports and it is often annoying. > Even after excessive testing and some more real-world testing (thanks to > all helpers!) its totally normal, that thinks break. > > I found one of the main

Re: Patch for Rails 4.2.7.1 Update

Hi Torsten, On 09/20/2016 04:31, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: > Hello, > > i'm currently working on an update to Rails 4.2.7.1 (which of course is > needed by GitLab :D). Since its a security update it would be fine to > get it into the ports-tree. > Indeed, thanks for working on this. > My

Re: devel/rubygem-devise does build with ruby23

Should be fine. Thanks, Steve On 09/12/2016 12:43, Palle Girgensohn wrote: > Hi, > > devel/rubygem-devise is marked as > > BROKEN_RUBY23= yes > > but it does work fine for me to build. > > www/gitlab pulls it in, and gitlab has deprecated ruby < 2.3. > > Is it OK to just remove the

Re: [package - 93amd64-default][devel/rubygem-gobject-introspection] Failed for rubygem-gobject-introspection-3.0.8 in stage

The answer to your question is at the bottom, where it says "freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org mailing list". That is, these messages are sent to the mailing list because that is who maintains the port. You're receiving them because you are subscribed to the list. Steve On 07/21/16 12:44 PM, Yubin Ruan

Re: Obsoleting Rails 3: how to handle different cases

Hi, On 06/16/16 05:55 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: > Hello, > > while working on obsoleting Rails 3 from the ports, i stumble across > various unclear cases. For example: > > 1) how to handle different copies of an gem with different > rails-dependencies. For example www/rubygem-haml-rails

Re: Feedback needed: www/redmine Update

Hi, On 06/ 6/16 12:23 PM, Steve Wills wrote: > Hi, > > On 06/ 6/16 08:10 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: >> Aloha, >> >> The patch can be found here: >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209938 >> > I updated the PR with a new patc

Re: Feedback needed: www/redmine Update

Hi, On 06/ 6/16 08:10 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: > Aloha, > > The patch can be found here: > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209938 > This doesn't work for me. There are 3 issues at least, perhaps more. In order of discovery: The nokogiri reference from the Gemfile in

Re: passenger 5.0.27 and NOPORTDOCS

Hi, On 04/21/16 09:39 PM, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: > Hi, > > I'm going to update www/rubygem-passenger port to the latest version 5.0.27. > I've found that recent change default version of ruby to 2.2 affected the > www/rubyge-passenger port: build time has been increased from 5 to 20 mins. > >

Re: svn commit: r412530 - head/www/gitlab

the >> documentation clearly states no support for 2.2. >> >> I'm currently installing an 2.2 based version of GitLab and will look >> what happens. :D >> >> Greetings, >> Torsten >> >> On 05.04.2016 03:42, Steve Wills wrote: >>> Ah

Re: svn commit: r412530 - head/www/gitlab

lly specifically needs Ruby 2.1. Ruby 2.2 and 2.3 are > currently not supported according to documentation: > https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/blob/master/doc/install/installation.md#2-ruby > > On 04/04/2016 21:34:29, Steve Wills <swi...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> Auth

Re: Remaining items for bringing in Gitlab

Hear hear, many thanks for Torsten for his tireless efforts and endless patience. Steve On 03/31/16 02:04 PM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > Below an itemized list of things that remain to be done for Gitlab 8.5.5 . >>> >>> A short Update: only GitLab itself is left: >>>

default ruby version

Hi, Just FYI, baring any objections or major issues coming up, I plan to make Ruby 2.2 the default Ruby in the ports tree on March 1. Puppet users in particular probably want to migrate to sysutils/puppet4 or work on testing some sort of patch that makes puppet 3.x work with ruby 2.2 before

Re: [Redmine] Remove %%RUBY_SUFFIX%% from make check-plist?

I've had this problem too. Set PLIST_SUB_SED_MIN=3 in make.conf (if you're using poudriere, set it in /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/make.conf). This will prevent the plist sub script from using such short values. Steve On 02/10/16 04:44 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: > Hello, > > i'm currently

Re: Obsoleting Rails 3.x?

On 01/21/16 02:26 AM, Torsten Zühlsdorff wrote: > Hello, > > while working on many ports i figured out there are a bunch of > dependencies to our Rails 3 port. But for many rubygems this is not > needed - they already work with Rails 4.2. Often this results in a port > based on Rails 3 and a

disabling ri and rdoc by default

Hi, I was thinking, maybe we don't need ri and rdoc stuff in packages by default. For servers they aren't that useful and even for development, I get the impression people don't use them much. Anyone have opinions for or against? Thanks, Steve ___

Re: [Gitlab] Current Status of the port

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 04:52:34PM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: On 05.08.2015 19:10, Steve Wills wrote: I will have a look at it. Is there anything in Admin Area - Logs which could be helpful? No, it looks to be a javascript issue, clicking the button doesn't even trigger any

Re: [Gitlab] Current Status of the port

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 05:28:45PM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: On 06.08.2015 17:16, Steve Wills wrote: I will have a look at it. Is there anything in Admin Area - Logs which could be helpful? No, it looks to be a javascript issue, clicking the button doesn't even trigger any

Re: [Gitlab] Current Status of the port

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:02:15PM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: Done. Thanks, I'll give it a go. I will have a look at it. Is there anything in Admin Area - Logs which could be helpful? No, it looks to be a javascript issue, clicking the button doesn't even trigger any sort of http

Re: [Gitlab] Current Status of the port

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 03:21:05PM +, Steve Wills wrote: On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:02:15PM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: Done. Thanks, I'll give it a go. I will have a look at it. Is there anything in Admin Area - Logs which could be helpful? No, it looks

Re: [Gitlab] Current Status of the port

On Wed, Aug 04, 2015 at 04:35:12PM +, Steve Wills wrote: On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 03:21:05PM +, Steve Wills wrote: On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:02:15PM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: Done. Thanks, I'll give it a go. I will have a look at it. Is there anything in Admin

Re: [Gitlab] Current Status of the port

On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 10:29:15AM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: Hello, # cd /usr/ports/devel/rubygem-gitlab_git-rails41 # portlint -AC FATAL: Makefile: the last line of a slave port's Makefile has to be .include ${MASTERDIR}/Makefile FATAL: Makefile: extra item MASTERDIR placed

Re: [Gitlab] Current Status of the port

Hi again, On 08/01/2015 10:51, Steve Wills wrote: Hi, On 07/31/2015 10:49, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: To setup GitLab follow the quide: https://github.com/t-zuehlsdorff/gitlabhq/blob/master/doc/install/installation-freebsd.md I've created a basic working configuration for default. You

Re: [Gitlab] Current Status of the port

Hi, On 07/31/2015 10:49, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: To setup GitLab follow the quide: https://github.com/t-zuehlsdorff/gitlabhq/blob/master/doc/install/installation-freebsd.md I've created a basic working configuration for default. You just should change the host in config/gitlab.yml, if

Re: [Gitlab] Current Status of the port

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 05:39:30PM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: As mentioned you will needed 40 currently uncommited ports. Today i have not enough time to create a patch for you. But i try to get this done tomorrow! After grabbing the shars that are in bugzilla at the moment, it seems

Re: [Gitlab] Current Status of the port

Hi, On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 04:49:59PM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: 3. get the most actual GitLab copy from svn://svn.toco-domains.de/freebsd-ports/www/gitlab Seems identical to the one in the shar, as far as I can tell. Fine. It shouldn't be in the shar, but its okay ;) Eh,

Re: [Gitlab] Current Status of the port

Hi, Torsten, On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 04:57:25PM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: Hello all, after porting GitLab to support Rails 4.2 was not very successful, i've started to get Rails 4.1 back into ports. You've already seen the PRs ;) Normally i do not talk much if i'm not confident

Re: FreeBSD Port: ruby20-2.0.0.645,1 - reported as vulnerable while it isn't ?

Hi, Did you build your own ports where ruby 2.0 was default? I see the package name here is ruby-2.0.0.645,1, not ruby20-2.0.0.645,1. The entries in vuxml look like this: 3326 nameruby20/name 3327 rangelt2.0.0.645,1/lt/range ... 3330 nameruby/name 3331

Re: Did rubygem-compass bug fix mean it can't build on 64bit systems

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:31:24AM -0400, Charles Strader Sweethill wrote: Hi Ruby maintainers, Was just trying to work through an install issue with rubygems-compass. Tried it without and with rubygem-sass installed, same patch failure then noticed that rubygem-compass recently got bug

Re: rubygems not working with ruby 2.2?

Hi, Yep, I'm aware, there's an update to devel/ruby-gems pending, see: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197083 Steve On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:25:43AM +, Koichiro IWAO wrote: Reproduced in clean environment. I think devel/ruby-gems is too old and needs updating.

ruby-gems update to 2.4.5

Hi, I hope to soon update devel/ruby-gems to the latest version, 2.4.5, after far too long at the ancient 1.8.x. There is a review here: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1678 though only those with an @FreeBSD.org email address may currently sign up and comment on the review. There's also a PR in

timing for Ruby 2.1 as default

Hi, I think it's time to go ahead and make Ruby 2.1 default. An exp-run has been done and switching to Ruby 2.1 produces no new failures. I was thinking February 1 2015 would be the date to switch the default to 2.1. Any have objections? Also, 1.9.3 will be EOL upstream soon:

Re: What determines whether a rubygem should be ported or not?

Hi, On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 03:15:41PM -0800, Matthew Closson wrote: Greetings! What determines whether a specific ruby gem should have a FreeBSD port created for it or not. I've looked at the list of available packages / ports that start with rubygem-* and its not obvious to me if its

Re: FreeBSD Port: ruby21-2.1.3_1,1

On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 06:41:40PM -0700, Carol Deihl wrote: Hello, I just installed ruby21-2.1.3_1,1 with the DEBUG option *unset*, and when ruby21 is invoked, it prints out: WARNING: number of probes fixed does not match the number of defined probes (9 != 50, respectively) WARNING:

Re: FreeBSD Port: ruby21-2.1.3_1,1

On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 03:35:26PM +, Steve Wills wrote: On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 06:41:40PM -0700, Carol Deihl wrote: Hello, I just installed ruby21-2.1.3_1,1 with the DEBUG option *unset*, and when ruby21 is invoked, it prints out: WARNING: number of probes fixed does not match

Re: Can't build ruby20 on -current: it doesn't honor WITHOUT_CDDL=yes

On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 05:41:31AM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote: On 30.10.2014 18:15, Steve Wills wrote: The checks for OS version weren't meant to detect presence of dtrace, they were meant to detect presence of dtrace with usable USDT. Unfortunately, presence of /usr/sbin/dtrace

Re: Can't build ruby20 on -current: it doesn't honor WITHOUT_CDDL=yes

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:26:02PM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote: On 30.10.2014 13:17, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:11:33PM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote: Hi. I disable zfs and dtrace on my machine using WITHOUT_CDDL=yes in /etc/src.conf ryby20 port throw this error:

Re: FreeBSD Port: converters/ruby-iconv

On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 06:39:29AM -0400, Robert Burmeister wrote: With the upgrade of default Ruby to 2.0, there should be a note in UPDATING to remove converters/ruby-iconv. Good point, thanks. That's done now. Steve ___ freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org

Re: FreeBSD Port: graphics/rubygem-cairo

On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 06:39:10AM -0400, Robert Burmeister wrote: FreeBSD 10.1RC1 i386. Not a great time to bump the default version of Ruby! I have not been able to build rubygem-cairo since the 1.12.9 update. Was building fine previously. I still haven't been able to figure out why this

Re: FreeBSD Port: graphics/rubygem-cairo

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 06:07:04PM -0400, Robert Burmeister wrote: FreeBSD 10.1RC2 i386 Build error: from extconf .rb:158:in 'required_pkg_config_package' from extconf .rb:166:in 'main' I'm unable to reproduce, could you post the full build log? Steve

Re: Ruby 2.0

On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 07:36:35PM +, Steve Wills wrote: On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:04:18AM -0700, Patrick wrote: Are there any plans to make Ruby 2.0 (or even 2.1) the default Ruby version for FreeBSD? Most every Ruby developer and company I know has moved past 1.9, and the 1.9 default

Re: Ruby 2.0

On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 10:04:18AM -0700, Patrick wrote: Are there any plans to make Ruby 2.0 (or even 2.1) the default Ruby version for FreeBSD? Most every Ruby developer and company I know has moved past 1.9, and the 1.9 default in FreeBSD makes it impossible to use the official pkg sources

Re: /usr/local/bin/ruby et al

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 02:54:33PM -0700, Patrick wrote: Is there any official way to have non-versioned links created in /usr/local/bin/ruby when installing from a precompiled package? Not at the moment. ie. If I have DEFAULT_VERSIONS=ruby=2.0 in my /etc/make.conf and I run: pkg install

Re: rubygem-compass-0.12.2 does not work on FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE

What version of the compass port do you have installed? If it's not 0.12.2_1, please upgrade to 0.12.2_1 which should pull in rubygem-sass32 3.2.17, which I think should fix this. Steve On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:24:39AM +0800, abscon wrote: Output of uname -a: FreeBSD yywr.gov.cn

Re: rubygem-compass-0.12.2 does not work on FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE

to figure out how to make it work when both versions are installed. Steve On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:56:27AM +, Steve Wills wrote: What version of the compass port do you have installed? If it's not 0.12.2_1, please upgrade to 0.12.2_1 which should pull in rubygem-sass32 3.2.17, which I think

Re: rubygem-compass-0.12.2 does not work on FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE

, Steve Wills wrote: I take that back, I've managed to reproduce the issue with that version of the compass port. I assume you have both rubygem-sass and rubygem-sass32 installed. Remove rubygem-sass if you can, assuming you don't use rails or anything else that might need it. It works for me

Re: Redmine port

Hi, Fixed in 349685, thanks for the report, sorry for the trouble (and for the duplicate mail). Steve On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 04:47:01PM +, Cyril Kalinchikov wrote: Hi, The Redmine port seems to be currently (2.5.1) broken: ===  Patching for redmine-2.5.1 ===   redmine-2.5.1

Re: FreeBSD Port: devel/ruby-rbbr

Sorry, should be fixed now. Steve On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 03:04:42PM -0400, Robert Burmeister wrote: Index error: --- describe.x11-wm --- make_index: /usr/ports/devel/ruby-rbbr: no entry for /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/ruby-gtk2 Done. failed to generate INDEX! portsdb: index

Re: Ruby and clang 3.4

Hi, Thanks, I've committed the patch, with slight modifications for 2.0 and 2.1. I've also reported the bug to upstream. Steve On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:52:33PM +0100, Antoine Brodin wrote: Hi there, With clang 3.4 (imported 3 days ago in head), ruby has problems configuring / building

Re: Rails fails on port textproc/rubygem-sass-rails

Fixed, thanks for the report. Steve On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:16:07AM +0100, Klaus Friis Østergaard wrote: I found that it is the requirement in the www/rubygem-rails there it requires textproc/rubygem-sass-rails 3.2.14 but this is incorrect it is 3.2.6 (which was released on the 14/1-2013)

Re: ruby docs ports, ruby-doc-*

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:24:54AM +0200, clutton wrote: The rest. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=185540 My proposal is that. Let remove all those 3 ports. Then ruby-doc-stdlib will move to misc. And perhaps ruby-doc-core will be created. Finally got around to this, sorry it

Re: request help to port a ruby based svn2git

Do you specifically need the version from github? If not, you may have an easier time of building the port if you fetch from rubygems.org: http://rubygems.org/gems/svn2git and let the framework do all the work for you. Steve On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 01:32:29PM +0100, olli hauer wrote: Hi,

Re: Time to mark lang/ruby18 DEPRECATED

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:23:27AM -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote: At the time we switched to ruby 1.9 there were some ports broken with 2.0 iirc. I'm not sure if the situation changed with the recent wave of 1.8 ports deprecation, though. I agree that we should go with 2.0. Given that

Re: ports/182131: [patch] www/redmine: multiple small errors

The following reply was made to PR ports/182131; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Steve Wills swi...@freebsd.org To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org Cc: mark...@malikania.fr Subject: Re: ports/182131: [patch] www/redmine: multiple small errors Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:35:16 + The LDAP gem

[PATCH] security/rubygem-twitter_oauth: update to 0.4.94

Submitter-Id: current-users Originator:Steve Wills Organization: Confidential: no Synopsis: [PATCH] security/rubygem-twitter_oauth: update to 0.4.94 Severity: non-critical Priority: low Category: ports Class: update Release: FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT amd64

Re: ports/170777: [PATCH] Not LIBS but LDFLAGS in Makefile of lang/ruby19

The following reply was made to PR ports/170777; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Steve Wills swi...@freebsd.org To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org, ksmak...@dd.iij4u.or.jp Cc: Subject: Re: ports/170777: [PATCH] Not LIBS but LDFLAGS in Makefile of lang/ruby19 Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 13:22:49 -0400

Re: ors in building lang/ruby 18 on CURENT-10.0-i386

Make config with oniguruma enabled and disabled has had the following error: ./lib/fileutils.rb:85: [BUG] Segmentation fault ruby 1.8.7 (2012-10-12 patchlevel 371) [i386-freebsd10] This is an incompatibility between Ruby 1.8 and Clang, I think. Anyway, Ruby 1.8 is ancient. Use 1.9: echo

Re: ruby-1.9.pc; strange/harmful entry

On 02/10/13 21:30, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 10/02/2013 21:56 Steve Wills said the following: On 02/04/13 15:41, Andriy Gapon wrote: $ pkgconf --libs ruby-1.9 -Wl,-soname,(.TARGET) -Wl,-R -Wl,/usr/local/lib -lruby19 -lexecinfo -lpthread -lcrypt -lm -L/usr/local/lib -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib

procname when ruby is used

Hi, I've encountered a situation with an rc script that I'm not sure how to solve. The issue is summarized well in this PR: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/170980 Basically, the ruby that's in use can vary because ruby 1.8 or ruby 1.9 may be used. There may be ruby, ruby18 or

Re: procname when ruby is used

On 08/29/12 15:28, Steve Wills wrote: Hi, I've encountered a situation with an rc script that I'm not sure how to solve. The issue is summarized well in this PR: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/170980 Basically, the ruby that's in use can vary because ruby 1.8 or ruby

Re: procname when ruby is used

On 08/29/12 15:39, Steve Wills wrote: On 08/29/12 15:28, Steve Wills wrote: Hi, I've encountered a situation with an rc script that I'm not sure how to solve. The issue is summarized well in this PR: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/170980 Basically, the ruby that's in use

Re: procname when ruby is used

On 08/29/12 18:33, David O'Brien wrote: On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 03:57:33PM -0400, Steve Wills wrote: name=mcollectived command=%%PREFIX%%/sbin/${name} read procname ${command} procname=%%PREFIX%%/bin/${procname##*/} Wouldn't this work? name=mcollectived command=%%PREFIX%%/sbin/${name

Re: procname when ruby is used

On 08/29/12 21:38, Doug Barton wrote: I'm pretty sure you actually want to use command_interpreter instead of procname. It should actually be very rare to use procname directly in an rc.d script. Got it, although that means picking the value at build time, but that seems OK. That said, I

patching rubygems

I've done some more work on the issue of patching rubygems and have produced the attached patch. I'm doing some testing by building all the rubygem- ports on 9.0 with both 1.9 and 1.8 as default ruby. The build with ruby 1.9 finished and the patch has only caused issues building the following

rails updated

Hi All, I've updated rails and friends to the latest and greatest. This unfortunately broke a few things: databases/rubygem-couchrest databases/rubygem-dm-types databases/rubygem-dm-serializer But there's not much I can do about it until we have support for patching gems or upstream updates to

Re: Ruby 1.9 as default

On Jun 7, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Mel Flynn rfl...@acsalaska.net wrote: On 2-6-2012 3:32, Steve Wills wrote: Hi All, I think we should try to make Ruby 1.9 the default Ruby again and would like to see it done before 9.1 is released. I've submitted a patch which does this and requested and exp

Re: Ruby 1.9 as default

On 06/07/12 17:57, Steve Wills wrote: This is expected. Try setting RUBY_DEFAULT_VER instead. I probably should have been more clear about this. The ruby ports only create ${PREFIX}/bin/ruby for the default ruby. So if you have ruby 1.9 installed but it is not the default ruby, you won't

Re: Ruby 1.9 as default

On 06/05/12 14:00, Stanislav Sedov wrote: You usually cannot dlopen the object linked agains pthread from a non-pthreaded object. Or it is used to be that way. My understanding is that you can now, IFF your non-threaded object is built with -pthread. Exec should work fine, I don't see how

Re: Ruby 1.9 as default

On 06/01/12 22:30, Stanislav Sedov wrote: I'm not sure it's a good idea. Ruby 1.9 still has some nasty bugs on FreeBSD, related to the threads and fork. That is fork in ruby 1.9 hangs sometimes... The ONLY thing I can find is this: http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/2097 which implies that

Re: Ruby 1.9 as default

On Jun 2, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Scot Hetzel wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Jos Backus j...@catnook.com wrote: The community is indeed moving to 1.9 and 1.8 is nearing end of life. I have been using 1.9 on FreeBSD for months now without any issues, and I would suggest we switch and try to

Ruby 1.9 as default

Hi All, I think we should try to make Ruby 1.9 the default Ruby again and would like to see it done before 9.1 is released. I've submitted a patch which does this and requested and exp-run from portmgr. I would like to get feedback on this idea. If you have experience with Ruby 1.9 as default,

Re: Ruby 1.9 as default

On Jun 1, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Stanislav Sedov wrote: On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:32:53 -0400 Steve Wills swi...@freebsd.org mentioned: Hi All, I think we should try to make Ruby 1.9 the default Ruby again and would like to see it done before 9.1 is released. I've submitted a patch which does

Re: REVIEW: update for www/rubygem-mechanize to 2.3

On 03/31/12 02:17, MIHIRA Sanpei Yoshiro wrote: Hi all, I updated www/rubygem-mechanize to 2.3 and created some ports. updated ports: www/rubygem-mechanize from 1.0.0 to 2.3 new ports: net/rubygem-domain_name textproc/rubygem-unf textproc/rubygem-unf_ext

Re: ports/165554: [PATCH] devel/ruby-gems: fix and cleanup PLIST

Makes sense to me. Assuming you ran it through tinderbox with 1.8 and 1.9 and that it passes, I say go ahead. Steve ___ freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ruby To unsubscribe, send any mail to

Re: [Fwd: ruby18-password-0.5.3_4 failed on amd64 7]

Likewise, this builds OK for me: Directory security/ruby-password ( FreeBSD ) Comment A Ruby library to create, verify and manipulate passwords Maintainer r...@freebsd.org Build Version Last Build Attempt Last Successful 10-CURRENT-i386-FreeBSD

Re: [Fwd: ruby18-bz2-0.2.2_1 failed on amd64 8]

Me too. I get intermittent failures and can't pin it down yet. Testing to see if it's a MAKE_JOBS issue right now. Steve I'm quite perplexed. http://people.freebsd.org/~pgollucci/FreeBSD/logs/9-CURRENT-amd64-ruby/ruby18-bz2-0.2.2_1.log On 01/23/12 21:39, Pav Lucistnik wrote:

Re: Update plan for Mechanize-2.1

On 01/21/12 17:29, MIHIRA Sanpei Yoshiro wrote: Hi, I'm FreeBSD and ruby user. Currently I use mechanize for web client programming. Latest version of mechanize is 2.1. However current ports tree is unfortunately 1.0(ports/www/rubygem-mechanize/). Would you tell me the update plan?

Re: What changed? (gem command missing in 1.9)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/11/11 21:18, Stanislav Sedov wrote: Yes, we can actually do that. We're discussing the possibility of making lang/ruby19 to depend on ruby-gems and rake, thus having ruby19 installation automatically install rake and gem as well. But nobody

devel/rubygem-json146 deletion

Hi, Now that I've updated the datamapper and rails ports, I think the devel/rubygem-json146 port can go away. Does anyone see a reason not to delete it? Thanks, Steve ___ freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: rails update

08:54, Steve Wills wrote: While working on my gems patching, I discovered that we need to update the builder rubygem, which started a lot of yak shaving which led to this: http://people.freebsd.org/~swills/rails31/ which updates rails to 3.1.0. There are some cross site scripting issues

Re: Ruby port advice needed [Was: rubyripper-0.6.0_1 failed on amd64 9]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/01/11 04:28, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: Hi there, There is a ruby-written port I maintain, and several months ago it was working just fine. However, apparently, our default Ruby bits got updated or something, and now it currently does not

gem patching

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, There has been a long standing need to be able to patch rubygem- ports. I've had some ideas on it and finally got around to working on a patch. Please see attached or check: http://people.freebsd.org/~swills/ruby_gem_patching.txt It's a very

rails update

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 While working on my gems patching, I discovered that we need to update the builder rubygem, which started a lot of yak shaving which led to this: http://people.freebsd.org/~swills/rails31/ which updates rails to 3.1.0. There are some cross site

Re: [Fwd: rubygem-ffi-1.0.3 failed on amd64 7]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/26/11 17:08, Pav Lucistnik wrote: [snip] /usr/bin/env /usr/local/bin/gem19 install -l --no-update-sources --no-ri --install-dir /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9 /tmp/distfiles/rubygem/ffi-1.0.3.gem -- --build-args ERROR: Error installing

Re: about last portupgrade/ruby version

Hi, Thanks for the report and the patch. I believe we have fixed the issue you reported below, but due to other issues we've reverted the default version of ruby to 1.9. I you have trouble, please let us know and we will try to assist. Thanks, Steve On 08/22/11 19:21, Barbara wrote: I know

  1   2   >