[oi-dev] SFE repository an g++ libraries in /hipster

[Bryan N Iotti]

Speaking of Ruby, I'm working with the RVM developers to get it to work properly.

So far the patches we have allow us to install RVM, download 2.1.0, build it and install gems (only caveat is the '--with-openssl-dir=/usr' flag at compile time) .

The ffi gem however is giving me trouble, must be aa question of finding the headers and libraries...

Anyway, if that works we shouldn't have trouble having an updated version of ruby anymore.

Bryan

---
Bryan N Iotti
ironsides.medvet at runbox.com
+39 366 3708436
  Original Message  
From: Alexander Pyhalov
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2014 08:00
To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list
Reply To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list
Subject: Re: [oi-dev] SFE repository an g++ libraries in /hipster

Hello.

On 02/05/2014 23:53, Alex Viskovatoff wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for coming to this discussion late.
>

> hipster/ is supposed to be bleeding edge. so why does it sometimes
> deliver packages at versions older than SFE does? icu is a case in
> point. if you see that SFE is at icu 4.8.1, why don't you just make
> hipster's icu at the same (or a higher) version? Then nothing would be
> broken. SFE's boost would simply use hipster's icu lib for its hipster
> build in that case.

Perhaps it would be better to base icu component on SFE spec, however it 
is based on version found in 
https://hg.openindiana.org/upstream/oracle/g11n/g11n-spec . I don't 
understand this stuff enough to say if Oracle patches are necessary in 
later icu versions. They didn't apply, so I went with 4.6. One issue I 
remember - svn version provides some files which should be regenerated 
by hands when using tarball. The only dependency of this library is php 
intl extension, so feel free to update it in oi-userland.

>
> Ruby is another case in point. Just a few days ago, I had to update
> SFE's spec for Ruby and build it myself, because hipster delivers a
> version of Ruby that is too old for something I was building. Why isn't
> hipster at the current stable release of Ruby, which is 2.1.0?
>

The answer is evident - nobody cared about Ruby enough to update it.

-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Pyhalov,
system administrator of Computer Center of Southern Federal University

_______________________________________________
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev at openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev