3:47 p.m.
I am running Fedora 12 with Rails 2.3.4 installed. Everything was working
fine, then last night I got an update from yum for Rack 1.1. After
installing that, my working rails apps failed to load. Creating a new test
app yielded:
/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:827:in `report_activate_error':
RubyGem version error: rack(1.1.0 not ~> 1.0.0) (Gem::LoadError)
Has anyone else hit this issue? If more detail is needed, let me know.
Thanks,
-j
4:17 p.m.
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:47:33 -0500, Jason Guiditta
<jason.guiditta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am running Fedora 12 with Rails 2.3.4 installed. Everything was
working
fine, then last night I got an update from yum for Rack 1.1. After
installing that, my working rails apps failed to load. Creating a new
test
app yielded:
/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:827:in `report_activate_error':
RubyGem version error: rack(1.1.0 not ~> 1.0.0) (Gem::LoadError)
Has anyone else hit this issue? If more detail is needed, let me know.
Thanks,
I've seen this issue occur once or twice, but I'm not all too well versed
in Ruby... is ~> even a valid comparison and if so, what does it imply
exactly? I'm afraid this should have been '=>', which would require a
patch
on the rails stack.
-- Jeroen
4:23 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip(a)kanarip.com>wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:47:33 -0500, Jason Guiditta
<jason.guiditta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I am running Fedora 12 with Rails 2.3.4 installed. Everything was
working
> fine, then last night I got an update from yum for Rack 1.1. After
> installing that, my working rails apps failed to load. Creating a new
test
> app yielded:
> /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:827:in `report_activate_error':
> RubyGem version error: rack(1.1.0 not ~> 1.0.0) (Gem::LoadError)
>
> Has anyone else hit this issue? If more detail is needed, let me know.
> Thanks,
>
I've seen this issue occur once or twice, but I'm not all too well versed
in Ruby... is ~> even a valid comparison and if so, what does it imply
exactly? I'm afraid this should have been '=>', which would require a
patch
on the rails stack.
-- Jeroen
Good call, '=~' is valid, but '~>' does not appear to be,
according to the
list here:
http://www.ruby-doc.org/docs/ProgrammingRuby/language.html#table_18.4
4:29 p.m.
Jason,
Can you send the listo of gems you have installed. I work ruby apps
and rails, but i normally compile my ruby version on Fedora, seems to me
that you installation update the rack version and eliminate the old one,
so now you do not have rack 1.0.0 and you application is looking for
that version or you do not have the gems version specified on the
enviroment.rb file of you application. For instance on my machine gem
list provide this line rack (1.1.0, 1.0.1) that mean i have installed
the two version of rack.
hope this help.
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 23:17 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:47:33 -0500, Jason Guiditta
<jason.guiditta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I am running Fedora 12 with Rails 2.3.4 installed. Everything was
working
> fine, then last night I got an update from yum for Rack 1.1. After
> installing that, my working rails apps failed to load. Creating a new
test
> app yielded:
> /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:827:in `report_activate_error':
> RubyGem version error: rack(1.1.0 not ~> 1.0.0) (Gem::LoadError)
>
> Has anyone else hit this issue? If more detail is needed, let me know.
> Thanks,
>
I've seen this issue occur once or twice, but I'm not all too well versed
in Ruby... is ~> even a valid comparison and if so, what does it imply
exactly? I'm afraid this should have been '=>', which would require a
patch
on the rails stack.
-- Jeroen
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
5:14 p.m.
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:29:56 -0500, Alejandro Perez
<alejandro.perez.torres(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Jason,
Can you send the listo of gems you have installed. I work ruby apps
and rails, but i normally compile my ruby version on Fedora, seems to me
that you installation update the rack version and eliminate the old one,
so now you do not have rack 1.0.0 and you application is looking for
that version or you do not have the gems version specified on the
enviroment.rb file of you application. For instance on my machine gem
list provide this line rack (1.1.0, 1.0.1) that mean i have installed
the two version of rack.
hope this help.
If you use "gem install" and "gem update", yes you can have multiple
versions of one gem. However, when using the Fedora provided RPM packages,
only one version of the package will be installed, inherently removing the
old version of the gem.
-- Jeroen
6:13 p.m.
Hi everyone,
First time I'm posting to this list, so here's hoping I'm not saying
anything stupid and this post can be of some actual use to someone.
It seems like the ~> is some special syntax that was developed especially
for rubygems (can be seen at
http://rubygems.rubyforge.org/svn/trunk/lib/rubygems/requirement.rb ). It
implies, quote-unquote:
lambda { |v, r| v = v.release; v >= r && v < r.bump }
where both v and r are Gem::Version objects (the required version and the
version present on the system, respectively). What seems to be happening is
that v (which is "1.1.0") does not satisfy a requirement of "~> r"
(where r
= "1.0.1"). I don't have the correct stack available here (my outdated
version of rubygems doesn't seem to support the "release" method), but
after
playing around in irb (use 'require "rubygems"' if you want to
reproduce)
for a bit, what I think happens here is this:
- v = v.release (=> v is now "1.1.0", since this was not a prerelease,
this returns itself)
- therefore, "v >= r" is the same as "1.1.0 >= 1.0.1" (this
would be
likely to succeed)
- and "v < r.bump" is the same as Gem::Version.new("1.1.0")
>=
Gem::Version.new("1.0.1").bump
Now the last line seems to be where things go haywire. "bump"ing 1.0.1
results in 1.1 and therefore, this line says "1.1.0 < 1.1"
The question then is, why is this gem specced like this? It seems that "~>"
means "some version from the same major.minor range (teeny doesn't matter)
and not higher than that." Altering the gemspec may help but may, of course,
hurt as well. Some information on why the gem has these requirements would
be very useful in determining the approach to this problem.
I hope this information can be useful to someone.
Regards,
Rene van den Berg
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip(a)kanarip.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:29:56 -0500, Alejandro Perez
<alejandro.perez.torres(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Jason,
>
> Can you send the listo of gems you have installed. I work ruby apps
> and rails, but i normally compile my ruby version on Fedora, seems to me
> that you installation update the rack version and eliminate the old one,
> so now you do not have rack 1.0.0 and you application is looking for
> that version or you do not have the gems version specified on the
> enviroment.rb file of you application. For instance on my machine gem
> list provide this line rack (1.1.0, 1.0.1) that mean i have installed
> the two version of rack.
>
> hope this help.
>
If you use "gem install" and "gem update", yes you can have multiple
versions of one gem. However, when using the Fedora provided RPM packages,
only one version of the package will be installed, inherently removing the
old version of the gem.
-- Jeroen
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
6:32 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 05:23:08PM -0500, Jason Guiditta wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen
<kanarip(a)kanarip.com>wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:47:33 -0500, Jason Guiditta
> <jason.guiditta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am running Fedora 12 with Rails 2.3.4 installed. Everything was
> working
> > fine, then last night I got an update from yum for Rack 1.1. After
> > installing that, my working rails apps failed to load. Creating a new
> test
> > app yielded:
> > /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:827:in `report_activate_error':
> > RubyGem version error: rack(1.1.0 not ~> 1.0.0) (Gem::LoadError)
> >
> > Has anyone else hit this issue? If more detail is needed, let me know.
> > Thanks,
> >
>
> I've seen this issue occur once or twice, but I'm not all too well versed
> in Ruby... is ~> even a valid comparison and if so, what does it imply
> exactly? I'm afraid this should have been '=>', which would require a
patch
> on the rails stack.
>
> -- Jeroen
>
>
Good call, '=~' is valid, but '~>' does not appear to be, according to
the
list here:
http://www.ruby-doc.org/docs/ProgrammingRuby/language.html#table_18.4
~> is a valid comparison for ruby gem versions. It is not a language
operator.
If you look at the gem specification in one of your gems, you'll see
something like "rack ~> 1.0.0". Which means that all rack versions of
the form 1.0.X, where X > 0 will satisfy that dependency.
if the dependency was "rack ~> 1.0" then anything of the version 1.X would
satisfy the dependency.
When you updated from rack 1.0 to rack 1.1, you had a had some other gem
that was dependent on "rack ~> 1.0.0" and when you upgraded to rack 1.1
via rpm, then it uninstalled rack 1.0, which broke that gem dependency.
If you run 'gem dependency' it will print out the dependency tree of
your gems and you can see which gem depends on 'rack ~> 1.0.0'
enjoy,
-jeremy
--
========================================================================
Jeremy Hinegardner jeremy(a)hinegardner.org
7:54 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Jeremy Hinegardner
<jeremy(a)hinegardner.org>wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 05:23:08PM -0500, Jason Guiditta wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip(a)kanarip.com
>wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:47:33 -0500, Jason Guiditta
> > <jason.guiditta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am running Fedora 12 with Rails 2.3.4 installed. Everything was
> > working
> > > fine, then last night I got an update from yum for Rack 1.1. After
> > > installing that, my working rails apps failed to load. Creating a
new
> > test
> > > app yielded:
> > > /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:827:in
`report_activate_error':
> > > RubyGem version error: rack(1.1.0 not ~> 1.0.0) (Gem::LoadError)
> > >
> > > Has anyone else hit this issue? If more detail is needed, let me
know.
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> >
> > I've seen this issue occur once or twice, but I'm not all too well
versed
> > in Ruby... is ~> even a valid comparison and if so, what does it imply
> > exactly? I'm afraid this should have been '=>', which would
require a
patch
> > on the rails stack.
> >
> > -- Jeroen
> >
> >
> Good call, '=~' is valid, but '~>' does not appear to be,
according to
the
> list here:
> http://www.ruby-doc.org/docs/ProgrammingRuby/language.html#table_18.4
~> is a valid comparison for ruby gem versions. It is not a language
operator.
If you look at the gem specification in one of your gems, you'll see
something like "rack ~> 1.0.0". Which means that all rack versions of
the form 1.0.X, where X > 0 will satisfy that dependency.
if the dependency was "rack ~> 1.0" then anything of the version 1.X would
satisfy the dependency.
When you updated from rack 1.0 to rack 1.1, you had a had some other gem
that was dependent on "rack ~> 1.0.0" and when you upgraded to rack 1.1
via rpm, then it uninstalled rack 1.0, which broke that gem dependency.
If you run 'gem dependency' it will print out the dependency tree of
your gems and you can see which gem depends on 'rack ~> 1.0.0'
enjoy,
-jeremy
--
========================================================================
Jeremy Hinegardner jeremy(a)hinegardner.org
Based on this, the culprit appears to be actionpack:
Gem actionpack-2.3.4
activesupport (= 2.3.4, runtime)
rack (~> 1.0.0, runtime)
This appears to be the only one in the list of gem dependencies that has
rack ~>1.0.0. I'll look into this more in the morning, but it is definitely
in the gemspec, so not sure the best route to fix this on fedora:
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/specifications/actionpack-2.3.4.gemspec
s.add_dependency(%q<rack>, ["~> 1.0.0"])
8:06 p.m.
Jason Guiditta wrote, at 02/24/2010 06:47 AM +9:00:
I am running Fedora 12 with Rails 2.3.4 installed. Everything was
working fine, then last night I got an update from yum for Rack 1.1.
After installing that, my working rails apps failed to load. Creating
a new test app yielded:
/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:827:in `report_activate_error':
RubyGem version error: rack(1.1.0 not ~> 1.0.0) (Gem::LoadError)
Has anyone else hit this issue? If more detail is needed, let me know.
Thanks,
-j
Well, as I already posted on
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2010-February/000055.html ,
rack 1.1.0 is not compatible with rails 2.3.x.
I added some workarounds on rawhide rails, however for F-12 we may have to
consider to downgrade rack to 1.0.0.
Regards,
Mamoru
8:41 p.m.
Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 02/24/2010 11:06 AM +9:00:
Jason Guiditta wrote, at 02/24/2010 06:47 AM +9:00:
> I am running Fedora 12 with Rails 2.3.4 installed. Everything was
> working fine, then last night I got an update from yum for Rack 1.1.
> After installing that, my working rails apps failed to load. Creating
> a new test app yielded:
> /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:827:in `report_activate_error':
> RubyGem version error: rack(1.1.0 not ~> 1.0.0) (Gem::LoadError)
>
> Has anyone else hit this issue? If more detail is needed, let me know.
> Thanks,
>
> -j
Well, as I already posted on
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2010-February/000055.html ,
rack 1.1.0 is not compatible with rails 2.3.x.
I added some workarounds on rawhide rails, however for F-12 we may have to
consider to downgrade rack to 1.0.0.
Well, actually workaround is in rubygem-actionpack, which rubygem-rails depends on.
Also please check
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552972
(already marked as "CLOSED RAWHIDE")
Regards,
Mamoru
8:39 a.m.
That is great that you have a work around for rawhide, but since I am
running f12, I am more interested at the moment in the rack version
downgrade there. Should I just file a BZ against the Rack gem, or have you
already spoken to the maintainer? FYI, just doing a little more poking now,
there are others outside fedora land who have hit this. I have links below
for some of the discussion (as recent as 2 days ago), but the gist is that
rails does not want to guarantee it runs on >1.0.x because rack could
introduce api breakage. This means we can not expect rails to be changing
their gemspec to accommodate a wider range of versions, and a ticket has
been filed against rubygems itself. Also, there is talk of rails using
bundler to get around this issue, which, from the little I know about it,
screams maven (and therefore makes me think there will be even more issues
coming up for rails in fedora). For instance, if you try to run a rails app
in thin (which is now in fedora), and it loads rack 1.1 (it will load the
latest you have installed), then rails will die because it tries to load
1.0.1 after 1.1 is already loaded.
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/3685-actionpack-235...
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/4031-...
rails position, explained by core commiter, yehuda katz:
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse_thread/thread/873d...
rubygems ticket:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=27867&grou...
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Mamoru Tasaka
<mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>wrote:
Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 02/24/2010 11:06 AM +9:00:
> Jason Guiditta wrote, at 02/24/2010 06:47 AM +9:00:
>> I am running Fedora 12 with Rails 2.3.4 installed. Everything was
>> working fine, then last night I got an update from yum for Rack 1.1.
>> After installing that, my working rails apps failed to load. Creating
>> a new test app yielded:
>> /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:827:in `report_activate_error':
>> RubyGem version error: rack(1.1.0 not ~> 1.0.0) (Gem::LoadError)
>>
>> Has anyone else hit this issue? If more detail is needed, let me know.
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -j
>
> Well, as I already posted on
>
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2010-February/000055.html,
> rack 1.1.0 is not compatible with rails 2.3.x.
> I added some workarounds on rawhide rails, however for F-12 we may have
to
> consider to downgrade rack to 1.0.0.
Well, actually workaround is in rubygem-actionpack, which rubygem-rails
depends on.
Also please check
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552972
(already marked as "CLOSED RAWHIDE")
Regards,
Mamoru
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
9:49 a.m.
Jason Guiditta wrote, at 02/24/2010 11:39 PM +9:00:
That is great that you have a work around for rawhide, but since I am
running f12, I am more interested at the moment in the rack version
downgrade there. Should I just file a BZ against the Rack gem, or have
you already spoken to the maintainer?
Filing a bug against rubygem-rack is preferable so that we can keep
track of this issue.
FYI, just doing a little more
poking now, there are others outside fedora land who have hit this. I
have links below for some of the discussion (as recent as 2 days ago),
but the gist is that rails does not want to guarantee it runs on >1.0.x
because rack could introduce api breakage.
Well, actually API of rack really changed between 1.0.0 and 1.1.0 and
for rubygem-actionpack just changing the dependency on rack from ~>
to >= does _not_ fix this issue (as I posted in bug 552972, after
just changing ~> to >= we will see many test failures on actionpack)
By the way you can see my workaround patch for actionpack 2.3.4 on:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/rubygem-actionpack/devel/rubygem...
This means we can not expect
rails to be changing their gemspec to accommodate a wider range of
versions, and a ticket has been filed against rubygems itself.
I don't think this is rubygem's problem. It is just that rack 1.1.x
and actionpack 2.3.x are not compatible.
Also,
there is talk of rails using bundler to get around this issue, which,
from the little I know about it, screams maven (and therefore makes me
think there will be even more issues coming up for rails in fedora).
For instance, if you try to run a rails app in thin (which is now in
fedora), and it loads rack 1.1 (it will load the latest you have
installed), then rails will die because it tries to load 1.0.1 after 1.1
is already loaded.
For me this is saying only that rack 1.1 should not be installed when
using rails 2.3.x regardless of whether thin is to be used or not,
or if rack 1.1 is definitely needed actionpack should be patched.
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/3685-actionpack-235...
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/4031-...
rails position, explained by core commiter, yehuda katz:
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse_thread/thread/873d...
rubygems ticket:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=27867&grou...
<http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=27867&grou...
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Mamoru Tasaka
<mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp <mailto:mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>> wrote:
Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 02/24/2010 11:06 AM +9:00:
> Jason Guiditta wrote, at 02/24/2010 06:47 AM +9:00:
>> I am running Fedora 12 with Rails 2.3.4 installed. Everything was
>> working fine, then last night I got an update from yum for Rack 1.1.
>> After installing that, my working rails apps failed to load.
Creating
>> a new test app yielded:
>> /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems.rb:827:in
`report_activate_error':
>> RubyGem version error: rack(1.1.0 not ~> 1.0.0) (Gem::LoadError)
>>
>> Has anyone else hit this issue? If more detail is needed, let
me know.
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -j
>
> Well, as I already posted on
>
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2010-February/000055.html
,
> rack 1.1.0 is not compatible with rails 2.3.x.
> I added some workarounds on rawhide rails, however for F-12 we
may have to
> consider to downgrade rack to 1.0.0.
Well, actually workaround is in rubygem-actionpack, which
rubygem-rails depends on.
Also please check
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552972
(already marked as "CLOSED RAWHIDE")
Regards,
Mamoru
Mamoru
5:01 p.m.
What was the resolution of the rubygem-rack issue? I'd really like
the new version of rack because then possibly we could get sinatra
into EPEL5.
5118
days inactive
5170
days old
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
12 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Alejandro Perez -
jason.guiditta -
Jeremy Hinegardner -
Jeroen van Meeuwen -
Mamoru Tasaka -
Michael Stahnke -
René van den Berg