From: RichardOnRails <RichardDummyMailbox58407@...>
Date: 2008-08-19T11:32:44+09:00
Subject: Re: "gem install rails –r" => ( URI: :InvalidURIError)

On Aug 6, 7:31 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 20:28 PM, RichardOnRails wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 7:46 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
> >> On Aug 4, 2008, at 16:08 PM, RichardOnRails wrote:
> >>> I installed Ruby 1.9.0-03 (ruby 1.9.0 (2008-07-25 revision 18217)
> >>> [i386-mswin32]) over WinXP/SP2 a few days ago.  It works great.
>
> >>> That installation included gem 1.2.0.1824.  I searched for a Rails
> >>> gem
> >>> and got:
>
> >>> K:\_Utilities\Ruby>gem list rails -r
> >>> *** REMOTE GEMS ***
> >>> rails (2.1.0)
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>> I tried a number of permutations/combinations of:
> >>> gem install rails –r
>
> >>> They all failed with:
> >>> ERROR:  While executing gem ... (URI::InvalidURIError)
> >>>   bad URI(is not URI?):
>
> >>> Gem under my Ruby 1.8.6 installation was working fine a while back.
> >>> My Firefox 2.0 browser is working fine.  Any idea what the problem
> >>> might be?
>
> >> Please report:
>
> >> gem env
>
> >> gem --debug install rails -r
>
> > Hi again Eric,
>
> > I still have 1.8.6 installed along with 1.9.0.  I mention that because
> > it might have some bearing at the second exception following the "gem
> > --debug install rails -r" command.
>
> > The exception references F:\Documents and Settings\RLMuller\.gem\specs
> > \gems.rubyforge.org%80,
> > which contains an untyped file "latest_specs.4.8" that seems to
> > contain Rails settings, e.g. ActsAsEscaped.
>
> The .4.8 at the end refers to the Marshal version of the contents of
> the file.  Inside it is an Array of Arrays of gem names, versions and
> platforms.
>
> > Presumably my 1.8.6 version references the Latest Specs file also.
> > that presents a potential conflict that might bear on the current
> > problem.
>
> Provided Ruby 1.9 correctly bumps the Marshal version numbers when
> changes occur, there should be no problem.  Your backtrace shows that
> this isn't the problem.

Hey Eric,

The is a belated post to tell you that 1.9 seemed more problematic
than I'm prepared to deal with.  I have only occasional use for look-
behind and can always use Perl until a regular release of 1.9 is
issued.

I apologize for not having reported back promptly.

Best wishes,
Richard