Ruby 1.6.8.2003.10.15_1 publicity

[Tillman Hodgson]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 12:08:53PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 10:37 AM -0600 2/27/04, Tillman Hodgson wrote:
> >Howdy folks,
> >
> >This morning I portupgraded two servers to ruby-1.6.8.2003.10.15_1
> >from ruby-1.6.8.2003.10.15). Since then, ruby appears to have died:
> >
> ># portversion -v
> >-bash: /usr/local/sbin/portversion: /usr/local/bin/ruby: bad 
> >interpreter: No such file or directory
> >
> >Yet `pkg_info ruby-1.6.8.2003.10.15_1` shows that the package is installed.
> 
> I have not looked into this, but one of my friends says the basic
> problem is that RUBY_DEFAULT_VER has changed, and thus the ruby 1.6
> port only installs /usr/local/bin/ruby16, and does not also install
> /usr/local/bin/ruby
> 
> One quick fix for this would be to make a symlink from the missing
> file to the installed file.  I'm sure it isn't the most perfect fix,
> but it's the quickest!  :-)

The commit message (copy at http://www.freshports.org/lang/ruby16/)
shows what seems to be a proper way to fix it. At least, it worked on
the 1st server that I tried it on (though it's a bit of a lengthy
process on slower CPUs). I'm more concerned about the publicity ... this
is likely to bite a *lot* of portupgrade users, and a commit message
isn't the first place I'd expect casual FreeBSD users to look ;-)

-T


-- 
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?