From: Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org> Subject: Re: Request for help: remove bundler from ruby 2.6 port Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 15:34:17 -0700
> I think perhaps it's worth considering doing the opposite and, > beginning with 2.6, install the entire standard library by default. > Gems and stdlib exist side-by-side without problem, and many of the > gems that are deleted are generally kept up-to-date. > > Even if we don't want to install the entire standard library, I'd at > least strongly argue for including the most important gems (rake, gem, > minitest, and bundler) by default. They are basic components of ruby > itself, and ports should provide //optional// newer versions of them. From: Pete Wright <p...@nomadlogic.org> Subject: Re: Request for help: remove bundler from ruby 2.6 port Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 16:41:32 -0800 > +1 from me on this. > > i think the benefits of lowering the porting overhead combined with > the fact that most ruby envs i've supported (and currently support) > are built around the expectation that rake, gem and bundler are all > available - so this would lower my administrative overhead as well. Thank you for reply. Then I'm going to create full port and post here again. But I'm away from this evening to next Saturday and can't access development environment during that time. So if someone else want to try it, please don't hesitate. Best Regards. --- Yasuhiro KIMURA _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
