[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Problem with Rake's PackageTask

Leo --

1/21/2006 2:27:00 PM

Hello!

I'm trying to add packaging to my rakefile. I copied the example code
from http://rake.rubyforge.org/classes/Rake/Packag..., that's it:

require 'rake/packagetask'

Rake::PackageTask.new("rake", "1.2.3") do |p|
p.need_tar = true
p.package_files.include("lib/**/*.rb")
end

but when I run rake --tasks, there are still no tasks related to
packaging. I googled for a while and I can't solve this puzzle. Please
help.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....
4 Answers

Leo --

1/22/2006 10:09:00 AM

0

Leo -- wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm trying to add packaging to my rakefile. I copied the example code
> from http://rake.rubyforge.org/classes/Rake/Packag..., that's it:
>
> require 'rake/packagetask'
>
> Rake::PackageTask.new("rake", "1.2.3") do |p|
> p.need_tar = true
> p.package_files.include("lib/**/*.rb")
> end
>
> but when I run rake --tasks, there are still no tasks related to
> packaging. I googled for a while and I can't solve this puzzle. Please
> help.

The correct link is
http://rake.rubyforge.org/classes/Rake/Packag...

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Jim Weirich

1/23/2006 3:10:00 PM

0

Leo -- wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm trying to add packaging to my rakefile. I copied the example code
> from http://rake.rubyforge.org/classes/Rake/Packag..., that's it:
>
> require 'rake/packagetask'
>
> Rake::PackageTask.new("rake", "1.2.3") do |p|
> p.need_tar = true
> p.package_files.include("lib/**/*.rb")
> end
>
> but when I run rake --tasks, there are still no tasks related to
> packaging. I googled for a while and I can't solve this puzzle. Please
> help.

With your rake file, I get:

$ rake --tasks
(in C:/Documents and Settings/BA2828/My Documents/pgm/ruby/pkgtask)
rake clobber_package # Remove package products
rake package # Build all the packages
rake repackage # Force a rebuild of the package files

--
-- Jim Weirich

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Fred J. McCall

3/22/2008 12:29:00 AM

0

Paul C <paul@thersgb.net> wrote:

:On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:40:27 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:<fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>Paul C <paul@thersgb.net> wrote:
:>
:>:On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:49:22 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:>:<fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>:
:>:>Paul C <paul@thersgb.net> wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:05:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:>:>:<fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>:>:
:>:>:>Paul C <paul@thersgb.net> wrote:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:08:15 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:>:>:>:<fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>Paul C <paul@thersgb.net> wrote:
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>:On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:26:53 -0500, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
:>:>:>:>:<finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
:>:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>:>Charles Ellson wrote:
:>:>:>:>:>>
:>:>:>:>:>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:58:57 -0500, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
:>:>:>:>:>> <finch.enteract@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
:>:>:>:>:>>
:>:>:>:>:>> >
:>:>:>:>:>> >
:>:>:>:>:>> >Charles Ellson wrote:
:>:>:>:>:>> >>
:>:>:>:>:>> >> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:05:43 -0400, "Frank Arthur" <Art@Arthurian.com>
:>:>:>:>:>> >> wrote:
:>:>:>:>:>> >
:>:>:>:>:>> >> >Americans put no Cubans to death but provided homes in the US for
:>:>:>:>:>> >> >thousands who fled Cuba sometimes on rafts or rowboats.
:>:>:>:>:>> >> >
:>:>:>:>:>> >> And you have never wondered why Castro didn't stop them leaving ? It
:>:>:>:>:>> >> certainly cut down on any overcrowding problems that the Cuban prisons
:>:>:>:>:>> >> might have had.
:>:>:>:>:>> >
:>:>:>:>:>> >Given what Castro considered a "crime", most were fairly
:>:>:>:>:>> >harmless ...
:>:>:>:>:>> >
:>:>:>:>:>> The Cuban versions of what constitutes crime also includes the rest of
:>:>:>:>:>> the world's versions.
:>:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>:>However the rest of the world never considered "Contra-
:>:>:>:>:>dicting and/or irritating Castro" a jailable offence...which
:>:>:>:>:>is more than can be said about old Fidel himself.
:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>:The rest of the world never considered being a communist a criminal
:>:>:>:>:offence, which more than can be said for the USA.
:>:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>More ignorance. Much of the rest of the world considered being a
:>:>:>:>communist a criminal offense and outlawed the communist party. That
:>:>:>:>was never the case in the United States and still is not.
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>I guess this tells us how much credence to give anything else you say,
:>:>:>:>when you can't get something this simple right...
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:The Communist Party of the USA was made illegal in 1954.
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>Which seems to have had so little effect that the Communist Party of
:>:>:>the US doesn't even seem to note that it occurred on their own web
:>:>:>site.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>You might want to look at the phrasing of said outlawing, which
:>:>:>outlaws such parties and knowing membership in them whose "object or
:>:>:>purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the
:>:>:>government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof,
:>:>:>or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and
:>:>:>violence,". Even at that they don't seem to be actively outlawed by
:>:>:>the wording, but rather "are not entitled to any of the rights,
:>:>:>privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under
:>:>:>the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political
:>:>:>subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities
:>:>:>which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary
:>:>:>organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any
:>:>:>political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated".
:>:>:>
:>:>:>So if the object or purpose of the Communist Party of the USA is *not*
:>:>:>"to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government
:>:>:>of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the
:>:>:>government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence"
:>:>:>it is not outlawed by said act.
:>:>:
:>:>:Statement by Eisenhower on the passing of the Communist Control Act
:>:>:(1954)
:>:>:
:>:>:"I HAVE TODAY signed S. 3706, An Act to make illegal the Communist
:>:>:Party and to prohibit members of Communist organizations from serving
:>:>:in certain representative capacities."
:>:>:
:>:>:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.ph...
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:>Now go back up and read what I already said.
:>:
:>:Now read the Act itself. Doh!
:>:
:>
:>Now follow your own advice. I've repeatedly pointed out to you what
:>it actually says is proscribed. Doh!
:
:AN ACT
:
:To outlaw the Communist Party
:
:
:What do you reckon that means, oh wise man?
:
:Doh!

It means that you're stupid and think that titles, preambles, etc,
actually have anything to do with what an Act actually does.

Doh!

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

conwaycaine

3/22/2008 2:36:00 PM

0


"Paul C" <paul@thersgb.net> wrote in message
news:jma8u39dgovuqlfg02cq3te8hvhlv3q63h@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:33:42 -0400, "conwaycaine"
> <conwaycaine@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul C" <paul@thersgb.net> wrote in message
>>news:j0i7u3lp0uccb078pcjdbciq998sk9s1fl@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:41:32 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>><Snip>
>>
>>> I'm going to have to choose between what the President said at the
>>> time, what the Act actually says and what contemporary newspaper
>>> reports said; and what Fred J MacCall and assorted US nutters say 50
>>> years on.
>>
>>Good point, Paul.
>>Only US nutters would disagree with your party line.
>>God save the Guardian!!!!
>
> Oh dear. I was merely using a term by which I had been addressed.

Nothing wrong with being a nutter.
We are all nutters in some areas.
I mean, who but a nutter would inflict the Usenet upon himself?
(Or denigrate Black Bush, might I add)
(Not THAT Black Bush, the other one)