Rails/Rack version issue

[Jason Guiditta]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Jeremy Hinegardner
<jeremy at 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 at kanarip.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:47:33 -0500, Jason Guiditta
> > > <jason.guiditta at 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 at 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"])
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/attachments/20100223/13539cfe/attachment.html