Project

General

Profile

Bug #14322

Inconsitency in command line options between 2.4 and 2.5

Added by graywolf (Gray Wolf) 4 months ago. Updated 3 months ago.

Status:
Rejected
Priority:
Normal
Target version:
-
[ruby-core:84664]

Description

How command-line options are handled was changed between 2.4 and 2.5

[ wolf@ws ] :: ~
Load: 0.33 2.40 3.64 , Memory: 4.48 %, Disk: 77.69 %
   $ ruby -rubygems -e 'puts Gem.user_dir'
Traceback (most recent call last):
    1: from /usr/lib/ruby/2.5.0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb:59:in `require'
/usr/lib/ruby/2.5.0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb:59:in `require': cannot load such file -- ubygems (LoadError)

[ wolf@ws ] :: ~
Load: 0.28 2.33 3.60 , Memory: 4.48 %, Disk: 77.69 %
:( $ ruby -rrubygems -e 'puts Gem.user_dir'
/home/wolf/.gem/ruby/2.5.0

[ wolf@ws ] :: ~
Load: 0.18 2.14 3.50 , Memory: 4.48 %, Disk: 77.69 %
   $ ruby-2.4 -rubygems -e 'puts Gem.user_dir'
/home/wolf/.gem/ruby/2.4.0

[ wolf@ws ] :: ~
Load: 0.40 2.12 3.48 , Memory: 4.49 %, Disk: 77.69 %
   $ ruby --version
ruby 2.5.0p0 (2017-12-25 revision 61468) [x86_64-linux]

[ wolf@ws ] :: ~
Load: 0.41 1.57 3.12 , Memory: 4.63 %, Disk: 77.69 %
   $ ruby-2.4 --version
ruby 2.4.3p205 (2017-12-14 revision 61247) [x86_64-linux]

was this intentional?

0001-lib-ubygems.rb-restore-placeholder.patch (721 Bytes) 0001-lib-ubygems.rb-restore-placeholder.patch normalperson (Eric Wong), 01/06/2018 12:49 AM

History

#1 [ruby-core:84665] Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) 4 months ago

  • Status changed from Open to Rejected

Yes, ubygems.rb was removed intentionally. This is mentioned in the NEWS file for 2.5.0.

#2 [ruby-core:84667] Updated by graywolf (Gray Wolf) 4 months ago

Hm, guess I should read not only the web version but also the detailed one. Guess this wasn't "notable" enough. Thx :)

#3 [ruby-core:84666] Updated by normalperson (Eric Wong) 4 months ago

wolf@wolfsden.cz wrote:

Bug #14322: Inconsitency in command line options between 2.4 and 2.5
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14322

was this intentional?

Sadly, yes, and done without warning. I should've pushed
harder for a long deprecation period about this :x

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/83144

We should try to fix this for 2.5.1

#4 [ruby-core:84668] Updated by normalperson (Eric Wong) 4 months ago

We must not break existing use cases (including commands which
may show up in shell scripts and Makefiles) without deprecation
warnings.

#5 [ruby-core:85277] Updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) 3 months ago

  • Backport changed from 2.3: UNKNOWN, 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: REQUIRED to 2.3: DONTNEED, 2.4: DONTNEED, 2.5: DONTNEED
  • Status changed from Open to Rejected

It's an intentional change. I have no plan to revert it.

#6 [ruby-core:85278] Updated by graywolf (Gray Wolf) 3 months ago

out of curiosity, why there was no deprecation phase for this change?

Also available in: Atom PDF