Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Error installing rubygems-bundler in 9.1.11.0 #4671

Closed
mohamedhafez opened this issue Jun 14, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

Error installing rubygems-bundler in 9.1.11.0 #4671

mohamedhafez opened this issue Jun 14, 2017 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@mohamedhafez
Copy link
Contributor

@mohamedhafez mohamedhafez commented Jun 14, 2017

Using the latest version of rvm to install 9.1.11.0 with the command rvm install jruby-9.1.11.0, I get the following error on both Mac 10.12 and Ubuntu 16.04:

ERROR:  Error installing rubygems-bundler:
        invalid gem: package is corrupt, exception while verifying:  (Java::JavaLang::ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException) in /home/web/.rvm/gems/jruby-9.1.11.0@global/cache/executable-hooks-1.3.2.gem

I also get the same error when trying to install gem install gcm -v '0.0.2', which makes me think this is a jruby issue and not a rvm issue...

ERROR:  Error installing gcm:
	invalid gem: package is corrupt, exception while verifying:  (Java::JavaLang::ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException) in /home/web/.rvm/gems/jruby-9.1.11.0/cache/gcm-0.0.2.gem

I've tried uninstalling & reinstalling several times to be sure its not a case of a corrupted download or anything as well.

@enebo enebo added this to the JRuby 9.1.12.0 milestone Jun 14, 2017
@enebo enebo added the regression label Jun 14, 2017
@enebo
Copy link
Member

@enebo enebo commented Jun 14, 2017

yay...I guess 9.1.12.0 will be coming tomorrow. This is probably a bit bigger than we want (although I installed like 30-40 gems during testing and never hit this).

@enebo enebo closed this in 83098f6 Jun 14, 2017
@enebo
Copy link
Member

@enebo enebo commented Jun 14, 2017

our recent PR for unreading stuff had a small flaw which did not consider the case that the read() was already at EOF. Surprisingly, we probably mostly hit a path where we read() to end but do not need to call isEOF().

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.