[Rubygems-developers] Gem indexing problem on RubyForge

Paul Duncan pabs at pablotron.org
Mon Jan 15 16:35:10 EST 2007


* Eric Hodel (drbrain at segment7.net) wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 18:40, Tom Copeland wrote:
> > You've probably all seen the ruby-talk traffic about the
> > RubyForge problem that cropped up this weekend.  Someone released a  
> > gem
> > with a spec.full_name (hoe-1.1.7) that didn't match the filename
> > (devotion-0.1.gem) and got itself placed in the gem index in the place
> > of hoe.  Sadness ensued.
> >
> > I figure the easiest way to fix this - at least temporarily, so we can
> > restart the RubyForge gem deployment cronjob - is to disallow  
> > deploying
> > any gem where full_name != file name:
> >
> > ----------------
> > file_name = "/var/www/gems/gems/foo-4.2.gem"
> > spec = Gem::Format.from_file_by_path(file_name).spec
> > deploy if file_name =~ /\/#{spec.full_name}.gem$/
> > ----------------
> 
> Could the regex be relaxed to /\/#{spec.full_name}.*\.gem$/ ?

It should be case-insensitive as well.  That's why my gems aren't
matching this regular expression; most of them have names in the form
"Project-Name", while the gems themselves are all lower-case named
"project-name-0.1.0.gem".  

I really don't think RubyGems should penalize people for using proper
grammar on a case-insensitive filesystem.

> (As part of the platform fix, I'm imagining making a non-ruby gems'  
> full name include their platform, something like "myproj-1.0- 
> mswin32.gem")
> 
> > This is going to affect about 40 gems.  I've attached the test program
> > and the list to the bottom of this email.  Looks like it's mostly
> > operating-system-specific gems.
> 
> I count 28 apparently non-platform gems.  Is it easy to tell how  
> active these projects are?  Can the authors be persuaded to  
> rerelease?  Can the gems be renamed without harm?

A large chunk of them are mine:

> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/rubilicious-0.1.4.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/imlib2-ruby-0.5.1.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/fam-ruby-0.1.4.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/rubilicious-0.2.0.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/freshmeat-ruby-0.1.0.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/fam-ruby-0.2.0.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/mb-ruby-0.2.1.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/joystick-ruby-0.1.0.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/xmms-ruby-0.1.2.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/rubilicious-0.1.5.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/mb-ruby-0.3.0.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/imlib2-ruby-0.4.3.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/mb-ruby-0.1.0.gem
> > BAD: /var/www/gems/gems/syndic8-ruby-0.2.0.gem

I'm simply not going to re-release all of them; it's a complete waste of
my time.  

-- 
Paul Duncan <pabs at pablotron.org>        OpenPGP Key ID: 0x82C29562
http://www.pablotron.org/               http://www.paulduncan.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/attachments/20070115/c38af563/attachment.bin 


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list