ruby 1.9 update patch

[Eric]

> From: Steve Wills <steve at mouf.net>
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Thanks for the feedback!
> 
> I was attempting to do some run time testing of this and stumbled upon a
> strange issue. It seems that even without my patch (and with it too), if
> you do this:
> 
> cd /usr/ports/databases/ruby-bdb
> env RUBY_VER=1.9 make install
> 
> on a system without any ruby, it will install Ruby 1.9, then fail to
> install the databases/ruby-bdb port since there will not be a "rdoc"
> binary installed, but only "rdoc19". My patch doesn't make this worse,
> but it doesn't help it either. Should I try to solve this and if so how?
> 
> Steve

That cropped up before here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ruby/2011-March/001169.html

I half remember you get a rake19 command, etc when installing Ruby 1.9.  You
certainly get a ruby18 in /usr/local/bin for 1.8!  Anyhow in the 1.9 Ruby
Makefile you can see a small snippet of code which currently doesn't do
anything, but would symlink those xxx19 scripts to the correct names if the
default version was bumped.

 .if ${RUBY_VER} == ${RUBY_DEFAULT_VER}
 . for FILE in ${INSTALLED_SCRIPTS}
         ${LN} -f ${PREFIX}/bin/${FILE}${RUBY_SUFFIX} ${PREFIX}/bin/${FILE}
 . endfor
 .endif

INSTALLED_SCRIPTS being: irb erb rdoc ri ruby testrb rake gem

How that symlinking affects or interferes with some of the gem versions of
those I don't know.

I suppose we need to decide if the plan is to get the system so that a user
could almost choose Ruby 1.8 or 1.9 as a default (Makefile option to do
things like those symlinks?) or if we're getting it so that we can just flip
the switch (RUBY_DEFAULT_VER) and make 1.9 a default in a future release.
That said we'd want to make sure it was fairly trivial for a user to revert
to a 1.8 install since it's still a popular version.

Also I do keep meaning to test your 1.9 patch and try it out when I get some
time!  Promise!

Regards

Eric