Bug#588125: Rubygems 1.3.7 broken with Ruby 1.9.2 in Debian -- help needed

2010-08-25 Thread akira yamada
2010/8/26 Lucas Nussbaum : > That worked fine until Ruby 1.9.1, but apparently a change in Ruby > 1.9.2 broke Rubygems 1.3.7. This is exhibited by two bugs: [...] > - rubygems doesn't work: >  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=588125 I trace the following error: -- $ gem1.9.1 list /

Bug#533122: ruby1.8-dev: FTBFS with newer ruby ?

2009-07-07 Thread akira yamada
Hi, > Thanks for the follow-up. Quantlib (upstream) and I figured out a workaround. > In previous versions we had gotten by without the configure step -- and hence > no Makefile was created and present. That did not seem to upset earlier > versions but it set up the current versions. Switching t

Bug#533122: ruby1.8-dev: FTBFS with newer ruby ?

2009-07-06 Thread akira yamada
Hi, > Now, however, using what is in unstable, ie > > Get:33 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main libruby1.8 1.8.7.173-1 [1679kB] > Get:34 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main ruby1.8 1.8.7.173-1 [290kB] > Get:35 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main ruby 4.2 [20.6kB] > Get:36 http://ftp.us

Bug#487238: ruby1.8: Arbitrary code execution vulnerability

2008-07-08 Thread akira yamada
Hi, Can someone please comment on the status of a fix for this bug in Etch? We are working on our svn-repos. Thank you. -- ay -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#483947: ruby1.9: uses wrong $LOAD_PATH

2008-06-02 Thread akira yamada / ??????
Hi, > Such a layout only makes sense if someone want to coinstall ruby 1.9.0 and > ruby > 1.9.1: if we have only one dir (for 1.9), then won't be able to install two > versions of the same lib (one for 1.9.0, one for 1.9.1). On the other hand, if > a lib was ported to 1.9.0, it's likely to be eas

Bug#441684: patch

2007-11-30 Thread akira yamada / ??????
Hi, > upstream ruby removed file version.h . But we already have lots of fixes > based on string RUBY_VERSION_CODE, so it's easier to recreate this > version.h for ruby1.9 package. This patch fix this bug. > > It also fix another bug introduced by ruby1.9 upstream changes. Basically, we should n

Bug#441489: reassign 441489 to libinotify-ruby

2007-09-11 Thread akira yamada
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.7 # This is changes of ruby1.9, so Bug#441489 is of libinotify-ruby. reassign 441489 libinotify-ruby -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#389681: Bug#399706: Bug#389681: apt-listbugs: Bug still exists in version 0.0.57

2006-11-21 Thread akira yamada
Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Please follow up this discussion in 399706. I agree Ruby is stupid > here, but I don't intend to work around it. I don't think so. It is not a bug of Ruby and it is bug of apt-listbugs. I think that the behaviour is intended by the upstream author of SOAP4r. The current

Bug#373953: ruby1.9: FTBFS: Error in ext/bigdecimal Makefile

2006-06-16 Thread akira yamada
Daniel Schepler wrote: > Makefile:143: *** missing separator. Stop. Does the line 143 contain "|#_!!_#|"? -- akira yamada -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence

2006-05-22 Thread akira yamada
". - "Ruby's License" doesn't conflict with OpenSSL License. - Programs cann't use libopenssl-ruby and other GPL'ed libraries. But it is a problem of such programs, it isn't a problem of ruby packages. - policy 2.3 says "Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license in the file `/usr/share/doc//copyright'". So, we will add a note of this fact in copyright and close this bug. -- akira yamada

Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence

2006-05-16 Thread akira yamada
think that debian/copyright has correct information. We may add this point as a note to libopenssl-ruby1.8.README.Debian, but I think that it is not a serious bug. -- akira yamada

Bug#367024: Licences conflict: Ruby under pure GPL with OpenSSL Licence

2006-05-12 Thread akira yamada
ded to the GPL. Ruby is distributed with dual-license which is "Ruby's License" or GPL. http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt> -- akira yamada

Bug#365162: libtcltk-ruby1.8: tcltklib fails during initialization

2006-04-28 Thread akira yamada
from /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/tk.rb:1102 > from ./tst.rb:2 This script works fine on my Debian-box. > Same problem when doing 'require "tk"' from irb1.8 I could not reproduce the problem. $ irb1.8 irb(main):001:0> require "tk" => true Pleas

Bug#331050: ..

2005-10-11 Thread akira yamada
or > Bignum (TypeError) > from /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/yaml.rb:133:in `load' > from /usr/bin/raggle:4795:in `load_config' > from /usr/bin/raggle:5441:in `main' > from /usr/bin/raggle:6461 I posted a workaround to ruby-core list: http://blade.nagaokaut.

Bug#332742: ruby1.8: [CAN-2005-2337] safe mode bypass

2005-10-08 Thread akira yamada
Martin Pitt wrote: > There is a safe mode bypass in all Ruby versions: I already prepared the new package and sent a notice to security team. But I cannot yet get DSA -- akira yamada -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C

Bug#330070: ruby1.8: ruby crashes, preventing Apache2 from being used

2005-09-25 Thread akira yamada
(core dumped) $HTTPD -k start -DSSL ruby1.8_1.8.3-1 is in unstable. please try it. If you get SEGV with 1.8.3-1, please send the backtrace. Thank you. -- akira yamada -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#305065: [dummy] ruby1.9 should not be part of a stable release

2005-06-29 Thread akira yamada
by1.9 must have RC-bugs which is not a dummy report. Thank you. -- akira yamada