rake 0.9.2.2 does not exist in rubygems.org
|ruby -v:||ruby 1.9.3dev (2011-09-23 revision 33323) [x86_64-linux]||Backport:|
1.9.3 installs rake as a 'default gems' which version is 0.9.2.2, but the version does not exist in RubyGems's source repository.
I heard that it makes bundler confuse. For some environment (not 100%), bundler generates Gemfile.lock with 'rake 0.9.2.2' and it crashes because it's not in rubygems.org.
1) create the following 2-lines Gemfile
2) bundle install
It creates '0.9.2.2' Gemfile.lock for some environment. (gem cache related? I'm not sure at present)
It might be just a bug of somewhere (ruby, rubygems, bundler, etc.), and should be fixed, but I think that this is an issue about "importing third party's gem as a standard library". It would be happened for json as well in the future.
I propose to remove 'rake' from 'default gems' for 1.9.3 GA (It just works as same as before like other standard libraries.) And the next version (1.9.4 or 2.0) should have a better way to integrate.
#2 Updated by Hiroshi Nakamura about 4 years ago
- Status changed from Third Party's Issue to Open
The problem I raised is an issue of "importing third party's gem as a standard library", not an issue of bundler. Sorry for let you confusing, Nobu.
The latest version of rake is 0.9.2 on RubyGems.org, but we're going to release modified version as 0.9.2.2. It's not what version control works. (FYI: development repo at github has v0.9.2.2 tag)
Of course, the right thing to do is pushing 0.9.2.2 gem on RubyGems.org but it's not our business. Just removing rake from 'default gem' looks to be a way to avoid blocking 1.9.3 release.
Anyone has a say? Is there any problem caused by removing it from 'default gem'? Eric, how do you think?
#3 Updated by Hiroshi Nakamura about 4 years ago
- Priority changed from 6 to Normal
- Target version changed from 1.9.3 to 2.0.0
0.9.2.2 is pushed to rubygems.org at 22 Oct. Now it's not a release blocker for 1.9.3 and I changed the priority to 'Normal'.
For 2.0.0, this issue should be solved at #5481. For 1.9.3-pX, we still need a care.