On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Eric Hodel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 25, 2008, at 16:58 PM, Luis Lavena wrote: > > > > > In this case, match_path will never match the full_gem_path. > > > > It should probably check original_name in addition to full_name. >
Something like this will work? (dunno if matches the standard. === modified file 'lib/rubygems/uninstaller.rb' --- lib/rubygems/uninstaller.rb 2008-02-24 03:08:49 +0000 +++ lib/rubygems/uninstaller.rb 2008-04-28 02:04:36 +0000 @@ -176,9 +176,11 @@ end def path_ok?(spec) - match_path = File.join @gem_home, 'gems', spec.full_name - - match_path == spec.full_gem_path + match_path_full = File.join @gem_home, 'gems', spec.full_name + match_path_original = File.join @gem_home, 'gems', spec.original_name + + match_path_full == spec.full_gem_path || + match_path_original == spec.full_gem_path end def dependencies_ok?(spec) Too verbose for my taste... > > > > > > > If you have a reproducible case against 1.1.1, you should open a bug > > > with details. > > > > > > > > > > Need to create a test case to reproduce this... couldn't locate a test > > where I can hook up and duplicate our situation... never got used to > > test/unit :-P > > > > I haven't played much in the uninstaller, so I think there aren't many > tests there :( > Don't worry. the above patch work: i386-mswin32: 594 tests, 1774 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors i386-mingw32: 588 tests, 1745 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors Also installing and uninstalling the offending gems from Chad copy of his ruby installation :-) Regards, -- Luis Lavena Multimedia systems - Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. Douglas Adams _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
