Project

General

Profile

Bug #14322

Inconsitency in command line options between 2.4 and 2.5

Added by graywolf (Gray Wolf) 10 months ago. Updated 5 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) 10 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) 10 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) 9 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) 9 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) 9 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) 9 months ago

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

#7 [ruby-core:87365] Updated by arpitchauhan (Arpit Chauhan) 5 months ago

graywolf (Gray Wolf) wrote:

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

This commit on Mar 3, 2018 did deprecate it, but it says that ubygems.rb may be removed on or after Dec 1, 2018. https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/commit/8933115bff09402f6baaffe2f2bf6971f71081fb#diff-5be91e1eedfcea837d44a272469a25b2

#8 [ruby-core:87367] Updated by graywolf (Gray Wolf) 5 months ago

yeeey, +1 for not silently breaking stuff :)

Also available in: Atom PDF