I get the following error if I try to build without X:
# FLAVOR=no_x11 make install clean
===> Checking files for ruby-1.8.3
`/usr/ports/distfiles/ruby-1.8.3.tar.gz' is up to date.
>> Checksum OK for ruby-1.8.3.tar.gz. (sha1)
===> ruby-1.8.3 depends on: tk-* - not found
===> Verifying install f
Here's a close to final version of the diff.
This diff fixes abit of the dependency logic issues and cleans up the
FLAVOR and PACKAGING and other comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This diff also gets the regression tests working again.
The bad news is that ruby doesn't pass it's own test suite on
> Here's my version of the ruby update. I feel this resolves the tk issue.
> We SUBPACKAGE all of the tk stuff and offer a no_x11 PSEUDO_FLAVOR for
> those who don't want to/can't install X11 on their build host.
Tested on i386 with FLAVOR=no_x11, Ruby-MySQL ,Rubygems and Rails-1.0RC2.
Thanks,
Jo
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 05:23:47PM -0400, Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote:
> Here's my version of the ruby update. I feel this resolves the tk issue.
> We SUBPACKAGE all of the tk stuff and offer a no_x11 PSEUDO_FLAVOR for
> those who don't want to/can't install X11 on their build host.
Tested succe
Here's my version of the ruby update. I feel this resolves the tk issue.
We SUBPACKAGE all of the tk stuff and offer a no_x11 PSEUDO_FLAVOR for
those who don't want to/can't install X11 on their build host.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS f
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:35:25 +0200
Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote:
>
> >>Get it in so we can fix the remaining issues... (x, licences etc).
> >
> >
> > NO. This update shouldn't go in until the issues are resolved.
> >
> > I have a better patch in the work
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 03:35:25PM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote:
> Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote:
>
> >>Get it in so we can fix the remaining issues... (x, licences etc).
> >
> >
> >NO. This update shouldn't go in until the issues are resolved.
> >
> >I have a better patch in the works that fix the X11
Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote:
Get it in so we can fix the remaining issues... (x, licences etc).
NO. This update shouldn't go in until the issues are resolved.
I have a better patch in the works that fix the X11 issues.
I'll be posting it a little later.
I second this. It's usually not "i
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 09:08:18AM +0200, Simon Dassow wrote:
> without x).
>
> > > sparc64 without x. The files are there, but unused... what about
> > > subpackaging those ruby extensions with depencies?
> >
> > First, i would like to update ruby in the tree so other people could
> > work on e
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 02:54:24PM +0200, Damien Couderc wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:02:16 +0200
> Simon Dassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hmm... i commented out the depends et voila, builds on current
>
> This is not clean enough for the ports tree. It works for you because
> you don't
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:02:16 +0200
Simon Dassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm... i commented out the depends et voila, builds on current
This is not clean enough for the ports tree. It works for you because
you don't have TK installed but could fail on the systems that will
build packages if t
>>
>> Yeah, I think that the tk libs may only be looked for at runtime, not compile
>> time. I'm not sure how clean/clear that would perceived as in the ports
>> tree...
>
> Hmm... i commented out the depends et voila, builds on current sparc64
> without x. The files are there, but unused... wh
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 10:50:13AM -0700, Tim Howe wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:55:22 +0200
> Simon Dassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I absolutly disagree with you removing the tk flavor and making
> > > tk and tcl a dependency. This makes ruby REQUIRE X11 to be intalled.
> > > Which i
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 07:51:06PM +0200, Damien Couderc wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:55:22 +0200
> Simon Dassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I totally agree with Mathieu.
>
> I do too but the fact is that --without-x11 has been removed from the
> configure script. AFAIK, the actual packa
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:55:22 +0200
Simon Dassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I absolutly disagree with you removing the tk flavor and making
> > tk and tcl a dependency. This makes ruby REQUIRE X11 to be intalled.
> > Which is totally ridiculous. Why should I have to install x11 to run
> > a r
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:55:22 +0200
Simon Dassow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I totally agree with Mathieu.
I do too but the fact is that --without-x11 has been removed from the
configure script. AFAIK, the actual packaging has been rewritten in a
way that does not permit easy selection of which
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:37:03 -0400
Mathieu Sauve-Frankel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 10:20:12PM +0200, Damien Couderc wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:41:00 +0200
> > Damien Couderc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Here is the update to the 1.8.3 version of ruby.
> >
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 12:37:03PM -0400, Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 10:20:12PM +0200, Damien Couderc wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:41:00 +0200
> > Damien Couderc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Here is the update to the 1.8.3 version of ruby.
[snip]
>
> I abso
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:37:03 -0400
Mathieu Sauve-Frankel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I absolutly disagree with you removing the tk flavor and making
> tk and tcl a dependency. This makes ruby REQUIRE X11 to be
> intalled. Which is totally ridiculous. Why should I have to install
> x11 to run a ru
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 10:20:12PM +0200, Damien Couderc wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:41:00 +0200
> Damien Couderc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here is the update to the 1.8.3 version of ruby.
> > As i received a lot of request about it, i expect a lot of feedback
> > from the same people. B
20 matches
Mail list logo
