Project

General

Profile

Bug #14322

Inconsitency in command line options between 2.4 and 2.5

Added by graywolf (Gray Wolf) 17 days ago. Updated 17 days ago.

Status:
Open
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) 17 days 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) 17 days 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) 17 days 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) 17 days ago

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

Also available in: Atom PDF