Changes between Version 10 and Version 11 of RubySection

Timestamp:

Apr 10, 2009, 7:53:39 PM (15 years ago)

Author:

ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)

Comment:

typos

RubySection

@@ -18 +18 @@
 == Problems & Potential Improvements ==
 
- * many ruby library ports are installed by invoking the Rubygems installer program {{{gem}}}. Since that is just a regular command line tool, a package installed as port can be uninstalled or upgraded using {{{gem}}} directly. That results in an unconsistent state of the registry, because a certain version of some software is marked as installed, while in fact it isn't or not in that version. This should be solved in some way, maybe by installing in a special location of that is possible.
+ * many ruby library ports are installed by invoking the Rubygems installer program {{{gem}}}. Since that is just a regular command line tool, a package installed as port can be uninstalled or upgraded using {{{gem}}} directly. That results in an inconsistent state of the registry, because a certain version of some software is marked as installed, while in fact it isn't or not in that version. This should be solved in some way, maybe by installing in a special location of that is possible.
  * There are a number of ruby implementations available, but currently only Matz' Ruby 1.8.7 is invokable just as {{{ruby}}}, or Matz' Ruby 1.9.1 is installed with variant {{{+nosuffix}}}. The variant causes ruby 1.9 to install withuout the suffix, but that makes it conflict with port {{{ruby}}}, i.e. 1.8.7. On the list Brett Eisenberg has suggested fixing that using the same approach as python_select and gcc_select, i.e. by writing configuration symlinks in a PATH location. 
- * To be discussed: should library ports for ruby generally be avoided in favor of the now ubiquitous gem (part of the 1.9 release)? Gems easily break the repositories consistency if packages are not managed exclusively over {{{port}}} or {{{gem}}}. OTOH library ports are the only way to provide dependencies to apps building onto these libs which we want as ports.
+ * To be discussed: should library ports for ruby generally be avoided in favor of the now ubiquitous gem (part of the 1.9 release)? Gems easily break the repository's consistency if packages are not managed exclusively over {{{port}}} or {{{gem}}}. OTOH library ports are the only way to provide dependencies to apps building onto these libs which we want as ports.
 
 == Section Maintainers ==