Yeah, patching that one line in lib/rubygems/packge.rb works well. I'll clean it up and send in a patch to guix in the morning. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. -r
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 at 21:19 Rob Syme <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, wait. I think we need the patches from PR#1457 ( > https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/pull/1457/files). I'll make a patch > and see. > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 at 21:11 Rob Syme <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ah, good thinking Ben, thanks. I've had a quick look, and the rubygems >> included in ruby version 2.3.1 tarball includes all of the symlinks fixes >> made in PR#1209, so *maybe* we don't need rubygems version 2.5.2 after all. >> I'm just testing to see if upgrading the ruby package to 2.3.1 fixes >> everything. >> >> -r >> >> P.S. I certainly didn't mean to insinuate that this was the fault of >> Ricardo (or you, for that matter). Thanks to all contributors! >> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 at 20:26 Ben Woodcroft <wood...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> On 27/04/16 20:39, Rob Syme wrote: >>> > Hi all >>> > >>> > Running `guix environment --ad-hoc ruby-ansi` fails for me (and >>> > others). The package definition uses the ruby-build-system but fetches >>> > the tar.gz directly from github instead of from rubygems. I'll try and >>> > find time to have a closer look, but if Ricardo has any time, he might >>> > be able to debug it faster than me. >>> >>> I think this the error is very similar to that described here, and >>> occurs during 'gem install' >>> https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1448 >>> >>> which is fixed in rubygems 2.5.2, but unfortunately ruby comes with >>> 2.5.1. Today a new version of ruby was released, but sadly, still 2.5.1. >>> So, I think this means we will need to either incorporate the patch(es) >>> that fix this into the ruby package, or package rubygems alongside ruby >>> somehow. Or, since there is only a problem during build time, perhaps >>> clobber the gem from the ruby package with a rubygems package during >>> build time. Unless you have any better ideas? >>> >>> Thanks for reporting this. I'm not sure we can blame Ricardo for this. >>> Rather, it is all my fault. >>> ben >>> >>
