Re: [PATCH] Help Ruby packages be reproducible

[Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au>]

On 31/12/15 09:52, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
> On 30/12/15 18:26, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au> writes:
>>> The .gem file stored in GEM_HOME after install is both redundant and an
>>> archive that stores timestamped files which makes builds 
>>> non-deterministic. So
>>> delete it after 'gem install'.
>> Good idea!  I don’t know if the existence of the cached gem is checked
>> for by any Ruby tools (bundler or the like).  Is there some
>> documentation about this cache?
> I wondered that too, but I built all of the ruby packages again 
> without issue and many of them use bundler. It also doesn't seem like 
> a good idea for bundler to use cached gems since I would guess that 
> gems that are downloaded but fail to install are kept in the cache. I 
> also wasn't able to see any mention of the cache in the rubygems API.
I found one instance where bundler uses cached gems - when installing a 
bundle using --local

        --local
               Do not attempt to connect to rubygems.org. Instead, 
Bundler will use the gems already present in Rubygems´ cache or in 
vendor/cache. Note that if a appropriate platform-specific gem exists  on
               rubygems.org it will not be found.

This doesn't seem like a deal breaker for the deletion approach to me 
though.

ben