Yes. That’s because you don’t have permission to read it, as expected.
So, how do you copy read-only files in ruby?
You can’t. That’s what read-only means. Try it at the command prompt,
you won’t be able to copy it there, either.
??? “Read only” means you can only read it, but not write it.
Obviously you can copy read only files, but you can’t write to a read
only file. Although often you can first delete a read only file you want
to write to and then write a new file with the same name.
Not to speak for everyone, but I’ve been thinking the exact same thing
lately. This is on the top of our minds, so it should be one of the
next features we see implemented.
Chad
···
On Mar 16, 2004, at 7:54 PM, Florian Gross wrote:
Richard Kilmer wrote:
Well, you can actually build a gem that contains a binary extension,
but you need to mark it as platform specific (i.e. it can contain
.so files). We are trying to work out the building from source…so
the gem contains the c/c++/ruby code and it is downloaded, extracted,
built and deployed.
I’d like to ask for having both: A choice to install precompiled
binaries for whatever OS you’re using (if they’re available) and
building them on by itself. I would like it to try to build it from
sources at first and then try using a precompiled binary as a
fallback. (If no compiler is available or compiling fails for whatever
reason.)
cool thanks, but:
rubygems-0.2.0>gem --remote-install=redcloth
c:/programmi/ruby-1.8/ruby/lib/ruby/site_ruby/rubygems/
remote_installer.rb:78:in
`find_latest_valid_package_in_caches’: Could not find redcloth >
case-sensitive.
What do you all think–should this be case sensitive or not? It’s
obviously a pretty easy thing to change.
I’d say the following interface would be best:
$ gem --remote-install=redcloth
Package “redcloth” not found. Closest match: “RedCloth”.
$ gem --remote-install=RedClith
Package “RedClith” not found. Closest match: “RedCloth”.
That’s an interesting idea. Definitely a better error message than
what 0.2.0 gives (which I’ve changed in CVS as of this morning).
I’d rather not lose case-sensitivity in installations. Searching for
a package should be case-instensitive by default though.
As of now it’s case insensitive in CVS. The previous behavior was as
you describe above. It’s obviously easy to change back. I kind of
like the idea of changing it back but providing a closest match as
you’ve described. Opinions?
There’s a fuzzy matching algorithm for strings among the RubyForge
snippets. (Convert both strings to lowercase before fuzzy matching.)
Thanks. I’ve just pasted it into a file to play with.
Chad
···
On Mar 15, 2004, at 7:04 AM, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
On Monday, March 15, 2004, 9:52:34 PM, Chad wrote:
On Mar 15, 2004, at 2:37 AM, why the lucky stiff wrote:
I’m waiting for the ability to build
native packages (i.e. rpm, deb, msi…)
Don’t wait…code it!
Seriously, we probably have people who are OK with Mac and Debian
installers. If anyone wanted to join the rubygems list and start
working on, for example, RPM or msi, it would be greatly appreciated.
I like this. I would be interested in working this for msi (Windows) – this
would dovetail nicely with my other ruby infrastructure-type projects (ruby
installer, wxruby). I just joined the rubygems ML, and I’ll make all future
postings there.
Thanks for the good work!
Curt
···
On Mar 15, 2004, at 5:59 AM, gabriele renzi @ google wrote:
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.610 / Virus Database: 390 - Release Date: 3/3/2004
I was just wondering why Rubygems uses a peer to peer configuration. I
mean what are the advantages? Why not just have all the gems on a main
central server and have some mirrors. What advantage does a
peer-to-peer architecture provide that a central server architecture
doesn’t. Note: I am assuming in general the RubyGems will be small in
size so the amount being downloaded from the server will not be that
much.
RubyGems allows for installation of gems from a remote service. There
is
a central repository right now at http://gems.rubyforge.org The design
allows any machine to serve as a gem server as well. This is nice, for
example, if you had a gem installed on your computer and wanted to allow
a buddy to install it on their’s. Although the main mechanism will
likely
be install from the central source, its nice to be able to support a
P2P mode as well.
-rich
···
On Mar 15, 2004, at 10:20 PM, Trevor Andrade wrote:
Hello all,
I was just wondering why Rubygems uses a peer to peer configuration. I
mean what are the advantages? Why not just have all the gems on a main
central server and have some mirrors. What advantage does a
peer-to-peer architecture provide that a central server architecture
doesn’t. Note: I am assuming in general the RubyGems will be small in
size so the amount being downloaded from the server will not be that
much.
