[ruby-core:31008] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9

Action Dispatch is the component responsible for handling requests and
responses (parameters, http status, uploads, etc).

Action Pack's dependency, in the fourth beta release, was on version 1.1.0
of rack. In Yehuda's example, the loaded version should be 1.1 and not 1.2.

I also agree that this should be fixed for the 1.9.2 release, given its
impact.

---

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 23:07, Roger Pack <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > We are about to ship a version of Ruby with a built in package manager
> with
> > the following property:
> > Given a package X with dependency Y, attempting to load X might require
> > dependency Z without any warning.
> > There is literally no other distribution of anything that would not
> consider
> > that property a major show-stopper. I am baffled about how this bug has
> > existed in the tracker so long, is considered "normal" priority, and has
> now
> > been bumped to 1.9.3 at the earliest.
>
> True it does require Z if Z is the same gem as X but Z has version > X
> It's inaccurate, and I agree it should be fixed.
>
> Is there any other instance where it causes a problem except for when
> you have differing versions of the same gem installed?
>
> You know what really gets me, though...
>
> If you are using rubygems and you have
>
> gem1/lib/xxx.rb
>  its contents are
>     require 'yyy'
>
> and
>
> gem2/lib/yyy.rb
>
> and
>
> gem3/lib/yyy.rb
>
> it will choose the yyy.rb of gem2 or gem3 *arbitrarily*
>
> That's the one that really gets me.  Yikes.  The only work around is to add
> a
>
> gem 'xxx' for *every gem you ever use* which clutters the code.
>
> Oh and the fact that rubygems downloads and installs binary gems built
> against 1.8 when I'm running 1.9
>
> That one is also tough.
>
> > ~/Code/tmp /master > irb
> > ruby-1.9.2-head > require "action_dispatch"
> >  => true
> > ruby-1.9.2-head > Rack.release
> >  => "1.2"
>
> Forgive me for not being familiar with rack and activesupport, but
> what gem is action_dispatch in and why is this "1.2" an error?
>
> Thanks.
> -r
>
>