Le 19/09/11 19:03, Jeremy Evans a écrit :
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Thomas de Grivel<billi...@gmail.com>  wrote:
Hi,

Package has no maintainer to CC according to Makefile.

I'm on 4.9-stable/amd64.

===>    Building package for ruby-rmagick-2.9.0p3
Create /usr/ports/packages/amd64/all/ruby-rmagick-2.9.0p3.tgz
Password:
Error:
/usr/ports/pobj/rmagick-2.9.0/fake-amd64/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rmagick-2.9.0/.require_paths
does not exist
Fatal error: can't continue
  at /usr/libdata/perl5/OpenBSD/PkgCreate.pm line 1185
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/ruby-rmagick (line 1690 of
/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk).
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/ruby-rmagick (line 2261 of
/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk).
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/ruby-rmagick (line 2241 of
/usr/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk).
Indeed the file ".require_paths" is not created / installed, and is not
present in the binary package from ftp.openbsd.org either. So the PLIST is
lying ?
My guess is you upgraded your version of rubygems.  Updated versions
of rubygems no longer produce the .require_paths file.  Our ruby 1.8
and 1.9 ports use rubygems 1.3.7, which still produce these files.
The jruby and rubinius ports use updated versions of rubygems, but I
backported support for .require_paths for those ports so that the same
PLIST can be used for all interpreters.  When ruby 1.9.3 is released,
the .require_paths stuff will probably go away, but for now it is
still needed.
I did upgrade rubygems (gem update --system), so that makes sense. Thank you for this explanation.

Are you sure it isn't present?  Without the file, the port won't
package, so I doubt that it is missing from the package on
ftp.openbsd.org.  I just checked and it is definitely there:

$ tar ztf ruby-rmagick-2.9.0p3.tgz | fgrep require_paths
lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rmagick-2.9.0/.require_paths

After you install the package:

$ cat /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rmagick-2.9.0/.require_paths
lib
ext
bin
Indeed..

Thanks !

--
Thomas de Grivel

Reply via email to