[Rubyinstaller-devel] OT: FYI - Will be partially away the next days

Alexey Borzenkov snaury at gmail.com
Fri Aug 21 12:55:35 EDT 2009

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Luis Lavena<luislavena at gmail.com> wrote:
> What needs to be done is complete the new DSL branch, but I has been
> so busy that commit time to it would be impossible.
> The new format for recipes uses checkpoint files for the tasks and
> treat packages individually, so if a source /origin for a file
> download changed: it will download the files and extract them, since
> the previous checkpoint file got invalidated.

What I'd also like to see is checksum checking for download tasks.
Right now checksums are not checked, so you can never be sure that you
downloaded what you originally planned on downloading. Worse, when I
first tried building it, my connection somehow dropped in the middle
and one of msys-related files was only partially downloaded. Yet
somehow download task was thinking it succeeded and later extracting
it obviously failed (so I had to delete the corrupted file to
continue). Situations like this could be caught earlier if there was
checksum checking.

>> Btw, using :force => true with FileUtils.mv is a really bad idea. All
>> it does is ignores any errors, and most likely that's not what you
>> want. I've been bitten many times by that, when it couldn't move
>> something and just silently succeeded (e.g. immediately after ruby is
>> unpacked Kaspersky goes inspecting it, and mv fails O.o which causes
>> only much later in the build process, when directory ext or something
>> else is missing).
> I don't remember the reasoning behind it actually, was over the Bazaar
> repo, and don't have it handy at work's computer.

Well, I can only guess that you might have been doing it because it
currently extracts stuff over and over again every time. And when
extracting ruby, for example, the moving out phase was obviously
failing, because target directories already exist.

I just pushed this change that implements mv_r without hacking FileUtils:


Somehow it even feels more stable than my hackish FileUtils version.

> But I agree, it is bad, but got the job done at that time.
> I'm going to send my proposal for the recipe to the list next week,
> and would love your input and others in the list.
> Once we settle on the format, I'm going to put the initial specs and
> focus in converting existing messy rake task to something cleaner in a
> recipe way.

Cool, can't wait for that! ;)

> Me sitting at the airport, having a sprite with ice thanks you for
> your continuos feedback :)
> Cheers!

Have a nice trip! :p

More information about the Rubyinstaller-devel mailing list