I tried rake-0.8.2 branch. It works good with rake 0.8.1 and rake 0.8.2. My OS is Mac OS X. Ruby is Macports ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72).
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Victor Hugo Borja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Assaf, > > Today I've been working on a rake-0.8.2 branch, I think I've finished with > the changes to get compatible with > the latest version of rake. > http://github.com/vic/buildr/commits/rake-0.8.2 > > I've also tested that branch with rake-0.8.1, and everything seems normal. > So, could anyone try it ?. > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:20 AM, lacton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Reading your proposed patch, I get the feeling that if we try to > > > support simultaneously rake 0.8.1 and rake 0.8.2, the code won't be as > > > clean and simple as it is now. > > > > > > If possible, I'd rather we adopt an all-or-nothing approach. Either > > > we support rake 0.8.1 only, or we fully migrate the trunk to rake > > > 0.8.2. > > > > One or the other. > > > > I think this, though, is a different problem. If you check out the > > source code and run rake install, the target gem will use Rake 0.8.1 > > (as per buildr.gemspec), but the rake install task will run buildr > > compile (on buildr.buildfile). This instance of buildr is run from > > source, a classical bootstrap problem, and ends up picking the latest > > version of Rake. > > > > I committed a change to make it use the _buildr script, which runs > > Buildr from source and forces it to use Rake 0.8.1. > > > > Assaf > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to hear others' opinions about this issue. > > > > > > Lacton > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Eung-ju Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> I have investigated changes of rake 0.8.2. Behavior of > > >> Rake::Application#have_rakefile was changed. > > >> > > >> Below patch would be helpful to build buildr with rake 0.8.2. > > >> > > >> Index: lib/buildr/core/application.rb > > >> =================================================================== > > >> --- lib/buildr/core/application.rb (revision 697069) > > >> +++ lib/buildr/core/application.rb (working copy) > > >> @@ -225,10 +225,20 @@ > > >> @gems = installed > > >> end > > >> > > >> + # In rake 0.8.2 have_rakefile returns location of rakefile. It > > doesn't > > >> set @rakefile > > >> + def have_buildfile > > >> + location_or_boolean = have_rakefile > > >> + if location_or_boolean.kind_of? String > > >> + @rakefile = location_or_boolean > > >> + return [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> + end > > >> + location_or_boolean > > >> + end > > >> + > > >> def find_buildfile > > >> here = original_dir > > >> Dir.chdir(here) unless Dir.pwd == here > > >> - while ! have_rakefile > > >> + while ! have_buildfile > > >> Dir.chdir('..') > > >> if Dir.pwd == here || options.nosearch > > >> error = "No Buildfile found (looking for: > [EMAIL PROTECTED](', > > >> ')})" > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:11 AM, lacton <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Eung-ju Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > >>> > I guess two changes makes buildr can't work with rake 0.8.2. > > >>> > > > >>> > 1. > > >>> > > > >>> > > > http://github.com/jimweirich/rake/commit/68303da1aeda78533c044f2a01a99a619fdb1932Prerequisites > > >>> > are no longer FileLists > > >>> > > > >>> > 2. > > >>> > > > >>> > > > http://github.com/jimweirich/rake/commit/41a334b4e6bd3175202675ad289668f457ef73a9Applied > > >>> > optparse patch > > >>> > Buildr::Application extends Rake::Application. In rake 0.8.2, > > >>> command-line > > >>> > argument parsing has changed. So there is some mismatch. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for the information. It looks like migrating buildr to rake > > >>> 0.8.2 will take some time. > > >>> > > >>> Lacton > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> * LukeSkywalker: Is the dark side stronger? > > >> * MasterYoda: No...no...no. Quicker, easier, more seductive. > > > > > > > > > -- > vic > > Quaerendo invenietis. > -- * LukeSkywalker: Is the dark side stronger? * MasterYoda: No...no...no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
