pkgdb is still looking for /usr/local/bin/ruby which after the upgrade
dosent exist. Its now /usr/local/bin/ruby16
ln -s /usr/local/bin/ruby16 /usr/local/bin/ruby
fixes pkgdb and portsdb
michael
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.o
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:54:21PM -0500, Michael Sharp wrote:
> pkgdb is still looking for /usr/local/bin/ruby which after the upgrade
> dosent exist. Its now /usr/local/bin/ruby16
>
> ln -s /usr/local/bin/ruby16 /usr/local/bin/ruby
>
> fixes pkgdb and portsdb
Did you report this to the portupg
Michael Sharp wrote:
pkgdb is still looking for /usr/local/bin/ruby which after the upgrade
dosent exist. Its now /usr/local/bin/ruby16
ln -s /usr/local/bin/ruby16 /usr/local/bin/ruby
fixes pkgdb and portsdb
I'm setting up a new 5.2.1-RELEASE system and was concerned about this,
as I was about t
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:59:28PM -0500, Shaun T. Erickson wrote:
> Michael Sharp wrote:
>
> >pkgdb is still looking for /usr/local/bin/ruby which after the upgrade
> >dosent exist. Its now /usr/local/bin/ruby16
> >
> >ln -s /usr/local/bin/ruby16 /usr/local/bin/ruby
> >
> >fixes pkgdb and portsdb
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:13:54PM -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
> > Probably not..the update to which you refer was committed earlier
> > today.
> >
>
> It looks like ruby has been updated to 1.8 and we have a situation like
> gettext. I deleted ruby-* and portupgrade and reinstalled portupgrade.
On Thursday 26 February 2004 09:15 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:13:54PM -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
> > > Probably not..the update to which you refer was committed earlier
> > > today.
> >
> > It looks like ruby has been updated to 1.8 and we have a situation
> > like gettex
On Thursday 26 February 2004 09:02 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:59:28PM -0500, Shaun T. Erickson wrote:
> > Michael Sharp wrote:
> > >pkgdb is still looking for /usr/local/bin/ruby which after the
> > > upgrade dosent exist. Its now /usr/local/bin/ruby16
> > >
> > >ln -s /u
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:03:36PM -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
> On Thursday 26 February 2004 09:15 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:13:54PM -0800, Kent Stewart wrote:
> > > > Probably not..the update to which you refer was committed earlier
> > > > today.
> > >
> > > It looks