RubyGems 1.9 (1.3.5) is broken/unsupported on Ruby 1.9.0
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| libgems-ruby (Ubuntu) |
Won't Fix
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned | ||
Bug Description
From http://
RubyGems is not supported on Ruby 1.9.0.
Ruby 1.9.0 is not a production-ready release.
You will need to upgrade your ruby.
Note there are several other showstopping RubyGems 1.3.5 bugs on Ruby 1.9.0 in the SourceForge tracker. It's fundamentally broken and the RubyGems maintainers a) don't support 1.9.0 and b) clearly deprecate its use in Debian and Ubuntu on the grounds that it's not production ready.
This looks to have been fixed in Maverick (which is currently using Ruby 1.9.1), but on Lucid we're stuck with a broken RubyGems and a broken Ruby, neither of which are obvious until you take the (in my case considerable) time to file a RubyGems/Ruby bug.
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04
Package: rubygems1.9 1.3.5-1ubuntu2
ProcVersionSign
Uname: Linux 2.6.32-24-generic i686
NonfreeKernelMo
Architecture: i386
Date: Thu Sep 9 16:22:28 2010
EcryptfsInUse: Yes
PackageArchitec
ProcEnviron:
PATH=(custom, user)
SHELL=/usr/bin/zsh
SourcePackage: libgems-ruby
| chocolateboy (chocolateboy) wrote | #1 |
| summary: |
- RubyGems1.9 (1.3.5) is broken/unsupported on Ruby 1.9.0 + RubyGems 1.9 (1.3.5) is broken/unsupported on Ruby 1.9.0 |
| description: | updated |
| Clint Byrum (clint-fewbar) wrote | #2 |
| Changed in libgems-ruby (Ubuntu): | |
| status: | New → Won't Fix |
chocolateboy, thank you for taking the time to file this bug report and help us make Ubuntu better.
I sympathize with the issue completely as I've seen other reports of brokenness w/ ruby 1.9.0 on lucid. I'm not really sure what we can do. If these two components from lucid (ruby 1.9.0 and rubygems 1.3.5) are known to be incompatible upstream, then there's not a lot we can do in the general sense. As "broken" as ruby 1.9.0 may be, changing the release of ruby 1.9 or rubygems is not something that would be done lightly, and thus far there doesn't seem to be a good reason to do so.
If you file a bug report for the specific issues, we can look at cherry-picking fixes for SRU based on their severity.
As such, I'm going to close this bug as Won't Fix. If you have a more specific case to report please do so in a new bug report.