Invalid Gemspec for Rails 3.2 #4559

Closed
derekprior opened this Issue Jan 20, 2012 · 17 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@derekprior
Contributor

derekprior commented Jan 20, 2012

It seems the 3.2 release has issues with some of the compiled gemspecs. I've seen elsewhere that updating to the latest rubygems fixes this, but there was no notation of that in the release notes. The default version of rubygems with REE is 1.6.2. Is support for only newer versions of rubygems intentional?

I've seen mention that building the gems with 1.9.x causes the issue, but I don't particularly understand it myself. Would rebuilding and re-publishing the gems with 1.8.7 fix the issue?

Updating rubygems locally is not an issue. Updating it on deployed environments may be for many people (myself included).

Invalid gemspec in [/Users/dprior/.rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2010.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/specifications/actionmailer-3.2.0.gemspec]: Illformed requirement ["#<YAML::Syck::DefaultKey:0x1035ce190> 3.2.0"]
Invalid gemspec in [/Users/dprior/.rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2010.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/specifications/actionpack-3.2.0.gemspec]: Illformed requirement ["#<YAML::Syck::DefaultKey:0x1034bb410> 3.2.0"]
Invalid gemspec in [/Users/dprior/.rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2010.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/specifications/activemodel-3.2.0.gemspec]: Illformed requirement ["#<YAML::Syck::DefaultKey:0x1035597a0> 3.2.0"]
Invalid gemspec in [/Users/dprior/.rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2010.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/specifications/activerecord-3.2.0.gemspec]: Illformed requirement ["#<YAML::Syck::DefaultKey:0x1034ad540> 3.2.0"]
Invalid gemspec in [/Users/dprior/.rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2010.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/specifications/activeresource-3.2.0.gemspec]: Illformed requirement ["#<YAML::Syck::DefaultKey:0x1035948c8> 3.2.0"]
Invalid gemspec in [/Users/dprior/.rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2010.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/specifications/rails-3.2.0.gemspec]: Illformed requirement ["#<YAML::Syck::DefaultKey:0x1036031d8> 3.2.0"]
Invalid gemspec in [/Users/dprior/.rbenv/versions/ree-1.8.7-2010.02/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/specifications/railties-3.2.0.gemspec]: Illformed requirement ["#<YAML::Syck::DefaultKey:0x1036e7748> 3.2.0"]
@fxn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fxn

fxn Jan 20, 2012

Member

It is not in the release notes because it was not in the plan. Problem is 3.2.0 was packaged using Ruby 1.9.

A note has been added to the blog post.

Member

fxn commented Jan 20, 2012

It is not in the release notes because it was not in the plan. Problem is 3.2.0 was packaged using Ruby 1.9.

A note has been added to the blog post.

@fxn fxn closed this Jan 20, 2012

@tenderlove

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tenderlove

tenderlove Jan 20, 2012

Member

If we're going to require a particular version of RubyGems to install rails, then we should set it in the gemspec. Either way, we have one of these bugs:

  • We're OK with any version of RG, in which case not being able to install on a particular version is a bug
  • We depend on a newer version of RG, but fail to declare our dependency on that version
Member

tenderlove commented Jan 20, 2012

If we're going to require a particular version of RubyGems to install rails, then we should set it in the gemspec. Either way, we have one of these bugs:

  • We're OK with any version of RG, in which case not being able to install on a particular version is a bug
  • We depend on a newer version of RG, but fail to declare our dependency on that version
@derekprior

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@derekprior

derekprior Jan 20, 2012

Contributor

I agree. Doesn't seem like a closed issue until either of those is addressed. It sounds like the first to me. Can we re-open it, @fxn ?

Contributor

derekprior commented Jan 20, 2012

I agree. Doesn't seem like a closed issue until either of those is addressed. It sounds like the first to me. Can we re-open it, @fxn ?

@Rio517

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Rio517

Rio517 Jan 20, 2012

I agree with @tenderlove and @derekprior.

Rio517 commented Jan 20, 2012

I agree with @tenderlove and @derekprior.

@tenderlove tenderlove reopened this Jan 20, 2012

@fxn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fxn

fxn Jan 20, 2012

Member

I closed the issue meaning nothing can be done for 3.2.0. If discussion about what do in 3.2.1 happens here that's perfect.

Member

fxn commented Jan 20, 2012

I closed the issue meaning nothing can be done for 3.2.0. If discussion about what do in 3.2.1 happens here that's perfect.

@tenderlove

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tenderlove

tenderlove Jan 20, 2012

Member

To fix this, we'll release 3.2.1 with Ruby 1.8. But I do think we should start specifying a minimum rubygems version in our gemspec. For now I think Rubygems 1.3.7 should be fine, and then require the default RG that ships with 1.9 for Rails 4.0.

Member

tenderlove commented Jan 20, 2012

To fix this, we'll release 3.2.1 with Ruby 1.8. But I do think we should start specifying a minimum rubygems version in our gemspec. For now I think Rubygems 1.3.7 should be fine, and then require the default RG that ships with 1.9 for Rails 4.0.

@orthodoX

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@orthodoX

orthodoX Jan 21, 2012

Is there any info when will 3.2.1 be released? I have this issue and I don't have root access to the server, can't update rubygems. I guess there are a lot of other people who have the same need :)

Is there any info when will 3.2.1 be released? I have this issue and I don't have root access to the server, can't update rubygems. I guess there are a lot of other people who have the same need :)

@fxn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fxn

fxn Jan 24, 2012

Member

@orthodoX the plan is to publish 3.2.1 really soon.

Member

fxn commented Jan 24, 2012

@orthodoX the plan is to publish 3.2.1 really soon.

@bcardarella

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bcardarella

bcardarella Jan 25, 2012

Contributor

Is bumping the required rubygems to 1.8.11 going to cause issues with TravisCI?

Contributor

bcardarella commented Jan 25, 2012

Is bumping the required rubygems to 1.8.11 going to cause issues with TravisCI?

@derekprior

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@derekprior

derekprior Jan 25, 2012

Contributor

I don't think so...

travis-ci.org provides exactly the same versions of rubygems RVM and various Ruby implementations/versions ship with. If REE 2011.12 ships with version 1.8.9, it will be 1.8.9 on travis-ci.org. However, if your project or one of its dependencies needs a more recent version of rubygems, you can upgrade them...

Source

4.0 will support, 1.9.3 or higher. RG 1.8.11 is included with 1.9.3 out of the box, so it should "just work". The change above was only committed to master.

Contributor

derekprior commented Jan 25, 2012

I don't think so...

travis-ci.org provides exactly the same versions of rubygems RVM and various Ruby implementations/versions ship with. If REE 2011.12 ships with version 1.8.9, it will be 1.8.9 on travis-ci.org. However, if your project or one of its dependencies needs a more recent version of rubygems, you can upgrade them...

Source

4.0 will support, 1.9.3 or higher. RG 1.8.11 is included with 1.9.3 out of the box, so it should "just work". The change above was only committed to master.

@bcardarella

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bcardarella

bcardarella Jan 25, 2012

Contributor

Ok, it seems TravisCI will be fine.

However, this will most likely mess with SlimGems. There are a lot of people using SlimGems instead of Rubygems (myself included).

Contributor

bcardarella commented Jan 25, 2012

Ok, it seems TravisCI will be fine.

However, this will most likely mess with SlimGems. There are a lot of people using SlimGems instead of Rubygems (myself included).

@parndt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@parndt

parndt Jan 25, 2012

Contributor

When's 3.2.1 due to fix this? I'm having a hard time with most of these builds failing because of invalid gemspec: http://travis-ci.org/#!/resolve/refinerycms/builds/575693

Thanks for your time, everyone.

Contributor

parndt commented Jan 25, 2012

When's 3.2.1 due to fix this? I'm having a hard time with most of these builds failing because of invalid gemspec: http://travis-ci.org/#!/resolve/refinerycms/builds/575693

Thanks for your time, everyone.

@parndt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@parndt

parndt Jan 25, 2012

Contributor

OK I'm working around my issue with TravisCI with this before_install hook which updates rubygems. resolve/refinerycms@b6c0cab

Contributor

parndt commented Jan 25, 2012

OK I'm working around my issue with TravisCI with this before_install hook which updates rubygems. resolve/refinerycms@b6c0cab

@minaguib

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@minaguib

minaguib Jan 26, 2012

FWIW, it seems that rubygems 1.3.7 is the latest "stable" currently available on at least 2 environments I use:

For those who prefer software is installed via a package manager (myself included), it's not currently trivial to upgrade rubygems on at least 2 configurations.

Granted there's always been friction when a package manager is used to install another package manager, so I understand the slowness on the distro's ends to adapt.

FWIW, it seems that rubygems 1.3.7 is the latest "stable" currently available on at least 2 environments I use:

For those who prefer software is installed via a package manager (myself included), it's not currently trivial to upgrade rubygems on at least 2 configurations.

Granted there's always been friction when a package manager is used to install another package manager, so I understand the slowness on the distro's ends to adapt.

@fxn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fxn

fxn Jan 26, 2012

Member

@derekprior does 3.2.1 fix this for you?

Member

fxn commented Jan 26, 2012

@derekprior does 3.2.1 fix this for you?

@derekprior

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@derekprior

derekprior Jan 27, 2012

Contributor

Yup. All set now.

Contributor

derekprior commented Jan 27, 2012

Yup. All set now.

@derekprior derekprior closed this Jan 27, 2012

@orthodoX

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@orthodoX

orthodoX Jan 27, 2012

thanks rails team! :D

thanks rails team! :D

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment