On Nov 24, 2007, at 21:59 , Luis Lavena wrote: > On Nov 24, 2007 11:58 PM, Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Nov 24, 2007 5:11 PM, Luis Lavena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Daniel and Eric, what do you think about this? Where should I >>> create a >>> fake platform specific gem to test this out? >>> >>> I guess that final 1.8.6-p111 One-Click will ship with 0.9.4 for >>> the time being. >> >> I'm not sure yet. >> >> At this point I'm inclined to think we should go back to the "ask to >> install" approach, and add a "--no-ask" option to skip it, because >> there's always going to be a case where a user wanted version X but >> instead got version Y. > > It's odd because of the two gems with the same version number, > RubyGems choose ::RUBY one instead of 'mswin32'. > > I failed to find the right place where that comparison is made to > recreate the scenario and provide a patch, is beyond my knowledge and > understanding on how RubyGems works. (maybe need to invest more time > on it). > > Also, is useless the platform switch in this case, since it always > prioritize the RUBY version instead of the platform specific one. > > Oh well, maybe a fresh look during the week will be more productive. > I'm burned out :-P
I think an index update with the new code will fix it. Currently the gems all have nil for the cpu field. -- Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
