Yeah, patching that one line in lib/rubygems/packge.rb works well. I'll
clean it up and send in a patch to guix in the morning. Thanks for pointing
me in the right direction.
-r

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 at 21:19 Rob Syme <rob.syme@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, wait. I think we need the patches from PR#1457 (
> https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/pull/1457/files). I'll make a patch
> and see.
>
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 at 21:11 Rob Syme <rob.syme@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, good thinking Ben, thanks. I've had a quick look, and the rubygems
>> included in ruby version 2.3.1 tarball includes all of the symlinks fixes
>> made in PR#1209, so *maybe* we don't need rubygems version 2.5.2 after all.
>> I'm just testing to see if upgrading the ruby package to 2.3.1 fixes
>> everything.
>>
>> -r
>>
>> P.S. I certainly didn't mean to insinuate that this was the fault of
>> Ricardo (or you, for that matter). Thanks to all contributors!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 at 20:26 Ben Woodcroft <woodibe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> On 27/04/16 20:39, Rob Syme wrote:
>>> > Hi all
>>> >
>>> > Running `guix environment --ad-hoc ruby-ansi` fails for me (and
>>> > others). The package definition uses the ruby-build-system but fetches
>>> > the tar.gz directly from github instead of from rubygems. I'll try and
>>> > find time to have a closer look, but if Ricardo has any time, he might
>>> > be able to debug it faster than me.
>>>
>>> I think this the error is very similar to that described here, and
>>> occurs during 'gem install'
>>> https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1448
>>>
>>> which is fixed in rubygems 2.5.2, but unfortunately ruby comes with
>>> 2.5.1. Today a new version of ruby was released, but sadly, still 2.5.1.
>>> So, I think this means we will need to either incorporate the patch(es)
>>> that fix this into the ruby package, or package rubygems alongside ruby
>>> somehow. Or, since there is only a problem during build time, perhaps
>>> clobber the gem from the ruby package with a rubygems package during
>>> build time. Unless you have any better ideas?
>>>
>>> Thanks for reporting this. I'm not sure we can blame Ricardo for this.
>>> Rather, it is all my fault.
>>> ben
>>>
>>