Jeremy Evans, 04 Dec 2014 16:17: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Mike Burns <mike+open...@mike-burns.com> > wrote: > > > On 2014-12-04 12.30.00 -0800, Jeremy Evans wrote: > > > But for ruby ports, there is little reason to add ports for pure ruby > > > gems if nothing else in the ports tree depends on them. > > > > But is that also true for programs which happen to be written in Ruby, > > such as sass? > > > No. If a port is being added so the program can be used, and not just for > usage as a ruby library, then yes, it's fine. In that case we do not > flavor the port, and the port is named after the program (without the ruby- > prefix), and the binary isn't versioned (sass, not sass21). sysutils/god > is such a existing port. > > frantisek, is the reason you want to add the port because of the sass > program? If so, you should rename it to just sass and make sure the above > is true.
yes, it is the reason. i will send an update. -f -- all computers wait at the same speed.
