Did gems change significantly recently? If not, my computer went nuts.
···
--
Giles Bowkett
Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com/
Check your PATH
Install anything recently that likes to change the path ? (python for example or other command line tools?)
···
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Giles Bowkett wrote:
Did gems change significantly recently? If not, my computer went nuts.
-- Giles Bowkett
Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com/
Check your PATH, `gem` doesn't delete itself.
···
On Oct 11, 2007, at 23:25 , Giles Bowkett wrote:
Did gems change significantly recently? If not, my computer went nuts.
--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars
BTW, Giles, I know you run OS X, so it is probably your path getting mucked up by either an installation of something, or a software update of some kind. I've had it happen and seen it on the list at least once a week lately.
There seem to be two schools of thought out there for setting paths in OS X, the "python school" and the "ruby school"
basically, one camp likes to use a different dot file in the home directory and the other camp likes to use another dot file.
In the python world, they seem to want to add a .bash_profile when installing, rather than checking to see what you are already using.
In the ruby world we tend to use the .bash_login for OS X.
there is also the possibility of a .bashrc
You're better off having only one of those, you'll likely know which one is the culprit by looking at the mtime (modified time) on the file in the file system.
open it and your usual path setting dot file, and adjust to fit your original scheme.
I can only guess that by creating another dot file, they're trying not to gum up your existing path, but that could be respected by commenting it out and appending the file with the new path...
When adjusting the dot files and paths, don't forget to comment them so you know why and what you changed later!
···
On Oct 12, 2007, at 3:54 AM, John Joyce wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Giles Bowkett wrote:
Did gems change significantly recently? If not, my computer went nuts.
-- Giles Bowkett
Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com/Check your PATH
Install anything recently that likes to change the path ? (python for example or other command line tools?)
John Joyce wrote:
···
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Giles Bowkett wrote:
Did gems change significantly recently? If not, my computer went nuts.
--
Giles BowkettBlog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com/Check your PATH
Install anything recently that likes to change the path ? (python for
example or other command line tools?)
Luu Trung Hieu
Attachments:
http://www.ruby-forum.com/attachment/636/add.txt
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
can we add that feature though?
···
On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
Check your PATH, `gem` doesn't delete itself.
--
share your knowledge. it's a way to achieve immortality.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama
and in my world they are all them same - you just have to guard them in order to make them re-entrant. safest thing on osx - the dotfile semantics there are weird...
···
On Oct 12, 2007, at 3:16 AM, John Joyce wrote:
In the python world, they seem to want to add a .bash_profile when installing, rather than checking to see what you are already using.
In the ruby world we tend to use the .bash_login for OS X.
there is also the possibility of a .bashrc
--
it is not enough to be compassionate. you must act.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama
An uninstaller for RubyGems? Yes, but I have no interest in writing it now.
···
On Oct 12, 2007, at 09:04 , ara.t.howard wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
Check your PATH, `gem` doesn't delete itself.
can we add that feature though?
--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars
It's true, I did mess around with my PATH the other day. I was going
nuts trying to install lejos, which is the Java API and VM for Lego
Mindstorms robots. But the weird thing is that I reverted the changes
in my .profile (to add to the list of dot files) and gem's still
invisible to bash.
I think something went wrong with gem itself. I'm expecting it to be
in /opt/local/bin/gem, but it isn't there. The output from locate gem
is absurd overkill, but maybe a long-running find.
···
--
Giles Bowkett
Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com/
no i meant on option to gem that would delete itself. or maybe a feature that just does it randomly?
(kidding)
···
On Oct 12, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
An uninstaller for RubyGems? Yes, but I have no interest in writing it now.
--
it is not enough to be compassionate. you must act.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama
and in my world they are all them same - you just have to guard them in order to make them re-entrant. safest thing on osx - the dotfile semantics there are weird...
Ara, they work the same in Bash on any system.
Giles Bowkett wrote:
It's true, I did mess around with my PATH the other day. I was going
nuts trying to install lejos, which is the Java API and VM for Lego
Mindstorms robots. But the weird thing is that I reverted the changes
in my .profile (to add to the list of dot files) and gem's still
invisible to bash.I think something went wrong with gem itself. I'm expecting it to be
in /opt/local/bin/gem, but it isn't there. The output from locate gem
is absurd overkill, but maybe a long-running find.
I guess you should consider how you installed ruby, then find out what
prefix it uses, and compare that to your current value of PATH.
mortee
technically that is true, but each system configures the system wide bash files diffrently
http://www.railsforum.com/viewtopic.php?pid=39026
http://thefactoryfactory.com/wordpress/?p=287
users coming from linux to bsd/osx are sometime surprised to find their .bashrc not sources in certain situations - this is due to the setup in /etc, not bash itself. regardless it's a source of confusion for many people.
regards.
···
On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:15 AM, John Joyce wrote:
Ara, they work the same in Bash on any system.
--
it is not enough to be compassionate. you must act.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama
> An uninstaller for RubyGems? Yes, but I have no interest in
> writing it now.no i meant on option to gem that would delete itself. or maybe a
feature that just does it randomly?(kidding)
as far as I can tell an uninstaller for RubyGems has evolved
spontaneously on my machine. if I catch it and tame it, I will be
happy to transfer it to a holding pen somewhere.
···
--
Giles Bowkett
Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com/
not sources? huh?
I think it's linux that might be deviating on that actually, but it shouldn't matter.
in all of them, there is a load precedence precedence on the file name and location. Some of the files officially have the same precedence, but might get slightly higher by being loaded in the order of the file name.
It's a fairly simple system, but has weaknesses, particularly the ability to have multiple files that do the same thing and may have conflicting information in them.
···
On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:50 PM, ara.t.howard wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:15 AM, John Joyce wrote:
Ara, they work the same in Bash on any system.
technically that is true, but each system configures the system wide bash files diffrently
http://www.railsforum.com/viewtopic.php?pid=39026
Macworld - News, Tips & Reviews from the Apple Experts
Throwback to blogsusers coming from linux to bsd/osx are sometime surprised to find their .bashrc not sources in certain situations - this is due to the setup in /etc, not bash itself. regardless it's a source of confusion for many people.
users coming from linux to bsd/osx are sometime surprised to find their .bashrc not sources in certain situations - this is due to the setup in /etc, not bash itself. regardless it's a source of confusion for many people.
not sources? huh?
'sources'.sub /s$/, 'd'
I think it's linux that might be deviating on that actually, but it shouldn't matter.
in all of them, there is a load precedence precedence on the file name and location. Some of the files officially have the same precedence, but might get slightly higher by being loaded in the order of the file name.
it's not quite just order - some are not loaded at all under certain situations. the .bashrc, for example is *not* sourced on login on some systems. linux does indeed do this differently so, if you're coming from that os you will have quite a suprised with a carefully crafted .bashrc.
cheers.
···
On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:32 PM, John Joyce wrote:
--
share your knowledge. it's a way to achieve immortality.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama