[Rubygems-developers] New beta tonight

Eric Hodel drbrain at segment7.net
Thu Nov 15 16:43:12 EST 2007


On Nov 14, 2007, at 06:59 , Luis Lavena wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 11:48 AM, Tom Copeland <tom at infoether.com> wrote:
>> FWIW, Alex Fenton is reporting that 0.9.2 is having trouble  
>> reading all
>> the gems in the index:
>>
>> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php? 
>> func=detail&aid=15417&group_id=5&atid=102
>
> I just added some comment about that after digging the wxRuby gem
> issues, pasting the comment here:
>
> <quote>
> The other thing is that wxRuby is being marked as 'x86-mswin32'
> platform gem, when the file is 'i386-mswin32'
>
> Doing deep in the problem, I see this from the metadata:
>
> rubygems_version: 0.9.4
> platform: i386-mswin32
>
> Compared to mongrel-1.1.1-mswin32.gem:
> rubygems_version: 0.9.4
> platform: mswin32
>
>
> Err... anyone noticing the difference? who wxRuby team is coding
> the platform? there wasn't a 'i386-mswin32' Gem::Platform constant
> for that in 0.9.4...
>
> They are using Gem::Platform::WIN32 for mswin platform:
> rake/rakepackage.rb:80
>
> self.platform = gem_platform
>
>
> Err... me confused... don't know why was that...
> </end_quote>
>
> Or wxRuby team was using the beta of rubygems to create the gem (since
> Gem::PLATFORM::WIN32 on beta will generate the new platform syntax) or
> they managed to brake RubyGems ;-)
>
> I used the same constant for Mongrel and the platform is correct.

They probably specified it by hand.  There's all kinds of bizarre  
platforms in existence that don't match the constants.  The indexer  
should support all these legacy strings, though.

--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars




More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list