On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 07:57:05AM -0800, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Federico Schwindt wrote:
>
> > shouldn't this be centralized, i.e. in ruby.port.mk when setting the
> > default version?
> >
>
> That makes sense to me, though I haven't tried it. I'll get it tested
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Federico Schwindt wrote:
> shouldn't this be centralized, i.e. in ruby.port.mk when setting the
> default version?
>
That makes sense to me, though I haven't tried it. I'll get it tested in a
bulk and see if there is any fallout.
Thanks,
Jeremy
>
>
> On Mon, J
shouldn't this be centralized, i.e. in ruby.port.mk when setting the
default version?
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Markus Lude wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > with the update of swig to 2.0.11 it doesn't build any more on sparc64.
> > MODULE
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Markus Lude wrote:
> Hello,
>
> with the update of swig to 2.0.11 it doesn't build any more on sparc64.
> MODULES lang/ruby uses ruby 2.0 per default now, which doesn't build on
> sparc64. Does the new swig need the new ruby or is ruby 1.8 enough?
>
It still packa
Hello,
with the update of swig to 2.0.11 it doesn't build any more on sparc64.
MODULES lang/ruby uses ruby 2.0 per default now, which doesn't build on
sparc64. Does the new swig need the new ruby or is ruby 1.8 enough?
Regards,
Markus
