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


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

"gem install rails –r" => (URI::InvalidURIError

RichardOnRails

8/4/2008 11:06:00 PM

Hi All,

I installed Ruby 1.9.0-03 (ruby 1.9.0 (2008-07-25 revision 18217)
[i386-mswin32]) over WinXP/SP2 a few days ago. It works great.

That installation included gem 1.2.0.1824. I searched for a Rails gem
and got:

K:\_Utilities\Ruby>gem list rails -r
*** REMOTE GEMS ***
rails (2.1.0)
[snip]

I tried a number of permutations/combinations of:
gem install rails –r

They all failed with:
ERROR: While executing gem ... (URI::InvalidURIError)
bad URI(is not URI?):

Gem under my Ruby 1.8.6 installation was working fine a while back.
My Firefox 2.0 browser is working fine. Any idea what the problem
might be?

Thanks in Advance,
Richard
7 Answers

RichardOnRails

8/4/2008 11:27:00 PM

0

On Aug 4, 7:05 pm, RichardOnRails
<RichardDummyMailbox58...@uscomputergurus.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I installed Ruby 1.9.0-03 (ruby 1.9.0 (2008-07-25 revision 18217)
> [i386-mswin32]) over WinXP/SP2 a few days ago. It works great.
>
> That installation included gem 1.2.0.1824. I searched for a Rails gem
> and got:
>
> K:\_Utilities\Ruby>gem list rails -r
> *** REMOTE GEMS ***
> rails (2.1.0)
> [snip]
>
> I tried a number of permutations/combinations of:
> gem install rails –r
>
> They all failed with:
> ERROR: While executing gem ... (URI::InvalidURIError)
> bad URI(is not URI?):
>
> Gem under my Ruby 1.8.6 installation was working fine a while back.
> My Firefox 2.0 browser is working fine. Any idea what the problem
> might be?
>
> Thanks in Advance,
> Richard

I just thought of what the problem might be: Ruby 1.9.0-03 is a
Japanese version of Ruby. I guessed my way through the .msi installer
screens. I haven't seen any impact of its Japanese origin when
running run-of-the-mill Ruby scrips, so far. But maybe the URI
generated was for a Japanese browser. Trying to actually debug the
gem is beyond my pay grade :-)

I'm going to experiment some more to see if I can get a better fix on
this problem.

Again, Thanks in Advance,
Richard

Eric Hodel

8/4/2008 11:47:00 PM

0

On Aug 4, 2008, at 16:08 PM, RichardOnRails wrote:
> I installed Ruby 1.9.0-03 (ruby 1.9.0 (2008-07-25 revision 18217)
> [i386-mswin32]) over WinXP/SP2 a few days ago. It works great.
>
> That installation included gem 1.2.0.1824. I searched for a Rails gem
> and got:
>
> K:\_Utilities\Ruby>gem list rails -r
> *** REMOTE GEMS ***
> rails (2.1.0)
> [snip]
>
> I tried a number of permutations/combinations of:
> gem install rails =96r
>
> They all failed with:
> ERROR: While executing gem ... (URI::InvalidURIError)
> bad URI(is not URI?):
>
> Gem under my Ruby 1.8.6 installation was working fine a while back.
> My Firefox 2.0 browser is working fine. Any idea what the problem
> might be?

Please report:

gem env

gem --debug install rails -r=20=

RichardOnRails

8/5/2008 2:48:00 AM

0

Hi Eric,

Thanks for looking into this issue. It's not life or death for me: I
can alway switch back painlessly to 1.8.6.
The results per your request follow below.

Best wishes,
Richard

K:\>gem env
RubyGems Environment:
- RUBYGEMS VERSION: 1.2.0.1824
- RUBY VERSION: 1.9.0 (2008-07-25 patchlevel 0) [i386-mswin32]
- INSTALLATION DIRECTORY: K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.0
- RUBY EXECUTABLE: K:/_Utilities/Ruby/bin/ruby.exe
- EXECUTABLE DIRECTORY: K:/_Utilities/Ruby/bin
- RUBYGEMS PLATFORMS:
- ruby
- x86-mswin32-60
- GEM PATHS:
- K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.0
- F:/Documents and Settings/RLMuller/.gem
- GEM CONFIGURATION:
- :update_sources => true
- :verbose => true
- :benchmark => false
- :backtrace => false
- :bulk_threshold => 1000
- :sources => ["http://gems.rubyforge..., "http://
gems.rubyonrails.org"]
- REMOTE SOURCES:
- http://gems.rub...
- http://gems.rubyo...

K:\>gem --debug install rails -r
Exception `NameError' at K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/
command_manager.rb:134 - uninitialized constant
Gem::Commands::InstallCommand
Exception `Errno::EEXIST' at K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/
fileutils.rb:243 - File exists - F:/Documents and Settings/
RLMuller/.gem/specs/gems.rub
yforge.org%80
Exception `URI::InvalidURIError' at K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/
uri/common.rb:436 - bad URI(is not URI?):
ERROR: While executing gem ... (URI::InvalidURIError)
bad URI(is not URI?):
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/uri/common.rb:436:in `split'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/uri/common.rb:485:in `parse'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/remote_fetcher.rb:
237:in `open_uri_or_path'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/remote_fetcher.rb:
249:in `open_uri_or_path'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/remote_fetcher.rb:
142:in `fetch_path'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/spec_fetcher.rb:
193:in `load_specs'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/spec_fetcher.rb:
173:in `block in list'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/spec_fetcher.rb:
165:in `each'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/spec_fetcher.rb:
165:in `list'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/spec_fetcher.rb:
116:in `find_matching'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/spec_fetcher.rb:
62:in `fetch'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/
dependency_installer.rb:94:in `find_gems_with_sources'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/
dependency_installer.rb:187:in `find_spec_by_name_and_version'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/
dependency_installer.rb:208:in `install'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/commands/
install_command.rb:73:in `block in execute'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/commands/
install_command.rb:70:in `each'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/commands/
install_command.rb:70:in `execute'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/command.rb:136:in
`invoke'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/command_manager.rb:
105:in `process_args'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/command_manager.rb:
75:in `run'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/gem_runner.rb:39:in
`run'
K:/_Utilities/Ruby/bin/gem.bat:32:in `<main>'



Eric Hodel wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 16:08 PM, RichardOnRails wrote:
> > I installed Ruby 1.9.0-03 (ruby 1.9.0 (2008-07-25 revision 18217)
> > [i386-mswin32]) over WinXP/SP2 a few days ago. It works great.
> >
> > That installation included gem 1.2.0.1824. I searched for a Rails gem
> > and got:
> >
> > K:\_Utilities\Ruby>gem list rails -r
> > *** REMOTE GEMS ***
> > rails (2.1.0)
> > [snip]
> >
> > I tried a number of permutations/combinations of:
> > gem install rails ?r
> >
> > They all failed with:
> > ERROR: While executing gem ... (URI::InvalidURIError)
> > bad URI(is not URI?):
> >
> > Gem under my Ruby 1.8.6 installation was working fine a while back.
> > My Firefox 2.0 browser is working fine. Any idea what the problem
> > might be?
>
> Please report:
>
> gem env
>
> gem --debug install rails -r

RichardOnRails

8/5/2008 3:27:00 AM

0

On Aug 4, 7:46 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 16:08 PM, RichardOnRails wrote:
>
>
>
> > I installed Ruby 1.9.0-03 (ruby 1.9.0 (2008-07-25 revision 18217)
> > [i386-mswin32]) over WinXP/SP2 a few days ago. It works great.
>
> > That installation included gem 1.2.0.1824. I searched for a Rails gem
> > and got:
>
> > K:\_Utilities\Ruby>gem list rails -r
> > *** REMOTE GEMS ***
> > rails (2.1.0)
> > [snip]
>
> > I tried a number of permutations/combinations of:
> > gem install rails –r
>
> > They all failed with:
> > ERROR: While executing gem ... (URI::InvalidURIError)
> > bad URI(is not URI?):
>
> > Gem under my Ruby 1.8.6 installation was working fine a while back.
> > My Firefox 2.0 browser is working fine. Any idea what the problem
> > might be?
>
> Please report:
>
> gem env
>
> gem --debug install rails -r

Hi again Eric,

I still have 1.8.6 installed along with 1.9.0. I mention that because
it might have some bearing at the second exception following the "gem
--debug install rails -r" command.

The exception references F:\Documents and Settings\RLMuller\.gem\specs
\gems.rubyforge.org%80,
which contains an untyped file "latest_specs.4.8" that seems to
contain Rails settings, e.g. ActsAsEscaped.

Presumably my 1.8.6 version references the Latest Specs file also.
that presents a potential conflict that might bear on the current
problem.

I hope this is a help to your analysis and not a distraction.

Best wishes,
Richard

Eric Hodel

8/6/2008 11:31:00 PM

0

On Aug 4, 2008, at 20:28 PM, RichardOnRails wrote:
> On Aug 4, 7:46 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 2008, at 16:08 PM, RichardOnRails wrote:
>>> I installed Ruby 1.9.0-03 (ruby 1.9.0 (2008-07-25 revision 18217)
>>> [i386-mswin32]) over WinXP/SP2 a few days ago. It works great.
>>
>>> That installation included gem 1.2.0.1824. I searched for a Rails =20=

>>> gem
>>> and got:
>>
>>> K:\_Utilities\Ruby>gem list rails -r
>>> *** REMOTE GEMS ***
>>> rails (2.1.0)
>>> [snip]
>>
>>> I tried a number of permutations/combinations of:
>>> gem install rails =96r
>>
>>> They all failed with:
>>> ERROR: While executing gem ... (URI::InvalidURIError)
>>> bad URI(is not URI?):
>>
>>> Gem under my Ruby 1.8.6 installation was working fine a while back.
>>> My Firefox 2.0 browser is working fine. Any idea what the problem
>>> might be?
>>
>> Please report:
>>
>> gem env
>>
>> gem --debug install rails -r
>
> Hi again Eric,
>
> I still have 1.8.6 installed along with 1.9.0. I mention that because
> it might have some bearing at the second exception following the "gem
> --debug install rails -r" command.
>
> The exception references F:\Documents and Settings\RLMuller\.gem\specs
> \gems.rubyforge.org%80,
> which contains an untyped file "latest_specs.4.8" that seems to
> contain Rails settings, e.g. ActsAsEscaped.

The .4.8 at the end refers to the Marshal version of the contents of =20
the file. Inside it is an Array of Arrays of gem names, versions and =20=

platforms.

> Presumably my 1.8.6 version references the Latest Specs file also.
> that presents a potential conflict that might bear on the current
> problem.

Provided Ruby 1.9 correctly bumps the Marshal version numbers when =20
changes occur, there should be no problem. Your backtrace shows that =20=

this isn't the problem.=

Eric Hodel

8/6/2008 11:33:00 PM

0


On Aug 4, 2008, at 19:48 PM, RichardOnRails wrote:

> Hi Eric,
>
> Thanks for looking into this issue. It's not life or death for me: I
> can alway switch back painlessly to 1.8.6.
> The results per your request follow below.
>
> Best wishes,
> Richard
>
> K:\>gem env
> RubyGems Environment:
> - RUBYGEMS VERSION: 1.2.0.1824
> - RUBY VERSION: 1.9.0 (2008-07-25 patchlevel 0) [i386-mswin32]
> - INSTALLATION DIRECTORY: K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.0
> - RUBY EXECUTABLE: K:/_Utilities/Ruby/bin/ruby.exe
> - EXECUTABLE DIRECTORY: K:/_Utilities/Ruby/bin
> - RUBYGEMS PLATFORMS:
> - ruby
> - x86-mswin32-60
> - GEM PATHS:
> - K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.0
> - F:/Documents and Settings/RLMuller/.gem
> - GEM CONFIGURATION:
> - :update_sources => true
> - :verbose => true
> - :benchmark => false
> - :backtrace => false
> - :bulk_threshold => 1000
> - :sources => ["http://gems.rubyforge..., "http://
> gems.rubyonrails.org"]
> - REMOTE SOURCES:
> - http://gems.rub...
> - http://gems.rubyo...
>
> K:\>gem --debug install rails -r
> Exception `NameError' at K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/
> command_manager.rb:134 - uninitialized constant
> Gem::Commands::InstallCommand
> Exception `Errno::EEXIST' at K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/
> fileutils.rb:243 - File exists - F:/Documents and Settings/
> RLMuller/.gem/specs/gems.rub
> yforge.org%80
> Exception `URI::InvalidURIError' at K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/
> uri/common.rb:436 - bad URI(is not URI?):
> ERROR: While executing gem ... (URI::InvalidURIError)
> bad URI(is not URI?):
> K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/uri/common.rb:436:in `split'
> K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/uri/common.rb:485:in `parse'
> K:/_Utilities/Ruby/lib/ruby/1.9.0/rubygems/remote_fetcher.rb:
> 237:in `open_uri_or_path'

Can you add 'p uri' above this line and report what it is trying to
parse?

RichardOnRails

8/19/2008 2:32:00 AM

0

On Aug 6, 7:31 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 20:28 PM, RichardOnRails wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 7:46 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
> >> On Aug 4, 2008, at 16:08 PM, RichardOnRails wrote:
> >>> I installed Ruby 1.9.0-03 (ruby 1.9.0 (2008-07-25 revision 18217)
> >>> [i386-mswin32]) over WinXP/SP2 a few days ago. It works great.
>
> >>> That installation included gem 1.2.0.1824. I searched for a Rails
> >>> gem
> >>> and got:
>
> >>> K:\_Utilities\Ruby>gem list rails -r
> >>> *** REMOTE GEMS ***
> >>> rails (2.1.0)
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>> I tried a number of permutations/combinations of:
> >>> gem install rails –r
>
> >>> They all failed with:
> >>> ERROR: While executing gem ... (URI::InvalidURIError)
> >>> bad URI(is not URI?):
>
> >>> Gem under my Ruby 1.8.6 installation was working fine a while back.
> >>> My Firefox 2.0 browser is working fine. Any idea what the problem
> >>> might be?
>
> >> Please report:
>
> >> gem env
>
> >> gem --debug install rails -r
>
> > Hi again Eric,
>
> > I still have 1.8.6 installed along with 1.9.0. I mention that because
> > it might have some bearing at the second exception following the "gem
> > --debug install rails -r" command.
>
> > The exception references F:\Documents and Settings\RLMuller\.gem\specs
> > \gems.rubyforge.org%80,
> > which contains an untyped file "latest_specs.4.8" that seems to
> > contain Rails settings, e.g. ActsAsEscaped.
>
> The .4.8 at the end refers to the Marshal version of the contents of
> the file. Inside it is an Array of Arrays of gem names, versions and
> platforms.
>
> > Presumably my 1.8.6 version references the Latest Specs file also.
> > that presents a potential conflict that might bear on the current
> > problem.
>
> Provided Ruby 1.9 correctly bumps the Marshal version numbers when
> changes occur, there should be no problem. Your backtrace shows that
> this isn't the problem.

Hey Eric,

The is a belated post to tell you that 1.9 seemed more problematic
than I'm prepared to deal with. I have only occasional use for look-
behind and can always use Perl until a regular release of 1.9 is
issued.

I apologize for not having reported back promptly.

Best wishes,
Richard