Opened 10 years ago
Last modified 10 years ago
#43830 new defect
rb-rubygems
| Reported by: | Schamschula (Marius Schamschula) | Owned by: | macports-tickets@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | 2.3.0 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | mojca (Mojca Miklavec), cooljeanius (Eric Gallager), anddam (Andrea D'Amore), kurthindenburg (Kurt Hindenburg) | |
| Port: | rb-rubygems |
Description
After installing rb-rubygems, I don't get a /opt/local/bin/gem, but rather /opt/local/bin/gem-1.8 and /opt/local/bin/gem2.1.
Worse
which gwm /usr/bin/gem
which causes any gems to be installed using OS X's version of ruby.
We need a post-install link to the gem binary specified by port select ruby.
Change History (8)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
| Cc: | mr_bond@… removed |
|---|---|
| Owner: | changed from macports-tickets@… to mr_bond@… |
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by mojca (Mojca Miklavec)
| Cc: | mojca@… added |
|---|
comment:5 follow-up: 6 Changed 10 years ago by anddam (Andrea D'Amore)
It seems the issue here is assuming that 'gem' is the correct command to call, it could be a widespread habit but is having a 'gem' binary mandatory?
Anyway this should be solved by just probiding a ruby_select port rather than augmenting post-install in each of rb-rubygems|ruby19|ruby20.
comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by cooljeanius (Eric Gallager)
Replying to and.damore@…:
It seems the issue here is assuming that 'gem' is the correct command to call, it could be a widespread habit but is having a 'gem' binary mandatory?
Anyway this should be solved by just probiding a ruby_select port rather than augmenting post-install in each of rb-rubygems|ruby19|ruby20.
edit: I see there's ruby_select already.
I don't really see how the ruby_select port could deal with the gem binary, considering that the gem binary is from a different set of ports than the set that the ruby_select port is used with... Maybe that is something the select PortGroup could be modified to deal with? That way, besides dealing with this issue, we also would no longer need to have a different _select port for every single python port that has binaries that people might want to use un-suffixed-ly, like we do now (as brought up in comment:ticket:38016:1 for example). Then again, I suppose the select PortGroup is already complicated enough as it is...
comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
| Owner: | changed from mr_bond@… to macports-tickets@… |
|---|
Port was abandoned. See #44845.
Cc Me!