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


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Ruby 1.9.1-p129: gem installation error?

Robert Klemme

5/13/2009 11:20:00 AM

Hi,

after building 1.9.1-p129 on cygwin I got

13:12:42 ~$ gem19 install RedCloth
WARNING: RubyGems 1.2+ index not found for:


RubyGems will revert to legacy indexes degrading performance.
ERROR: While executing gem ... (ArgumentError)
string contains null byte

(The full story with debug is below.)

This could be an issue with our company's HTTP proxy because we had
issues with MD5 mismatches in the past and the debug seems to indicate
issues with chunk sizes. Can anybody confirm that he / she can
actually install that gem properly with this version of Ruby?

13:13:10 ~$ ruby --version
ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i386-cygwin]

Thanks!

Kind regards

robert


13:12:56 ~$ gem19 install --debug RedCloth
Exception `NameError' at
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/command_manager.rb:134 - uninitialized
constant Gem::Commands::InstallCommand
Exception `Gem::LoadError' at /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems.rb:636 -
Could not find RubyGem sources (> 0.0.1)

Exception `Net::HTTPBadResponse' at
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/net/http.rb:2350 - wrong chunk size line:
Exception `Net::HTTPBadResponse' at
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/net/http.rb:2350 - wrong chunk size line:
Exception `Gem::RemoteFetcher::FetchError' at
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/remote_fetcher.rb:296 - too many bad
responses (http://gems.rubyforge.org/latest_sp...)
Exception `Gem::RemoteFetcher::FetchError' at
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/remote_fetcher.rb:146 - too many bad
responses (http://gems.rubyforge.org/latest_sp...)
WARNING: RubyGems 1.2+ index not found for:


RubyGems will revert to legacy indexes degrading performance.
Exception `ArgumentError' at
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_reader/entry.rb:44 - string
contains null byte
ERROR: While executing gem ... (ArgumentError)
string contains null byte
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_reader/entry.rb:44:in `join'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_reader/entry.rb:44:in
`full_name'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_input.rb:34:in
`block in initialize'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_reader.rb:46:in
`block in each'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_reader.rb:37:in `loop'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_reader.rb:37:in `each'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_input.rb:33:in `initialize'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_input.rb:18:in `new'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_input.rb:18:in `open'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package.rb:56:in `open'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/format.rb:67:in `from_io'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/format.rb:51:in `block in
from_file_by_path'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/format.rb:50:in `open'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/format.rb:50:in `from_file_by_path'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/installer.rb:114:in `initialize'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/dependency_installer.rb:236:in `new'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/dependency_installer.rb:236:in
`block in install'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/dependency_installer.rb:219:in `each'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/dependency_installer.rb:219:in `install'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/commands/install_command.rb:86:in
`block in execute'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/commands/install_command.rb:83:in `each'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/commands/install_command.rb:83:in
`execute'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/command.rb:136:in `invoke'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/command_manager.rb:105:in `process_args'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/command_manager.rb:75:in `run'
/opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/gem_runner.rb:39:in `run'
/opt/bin/gem19:24:in `<main>'
13:13:10 ~$

I get the same error when trying to read the file in IRB from the
cache directory:

irb(main):006:0> x = Gem::Format.from_file_by_path "RedCloth-4.1.9.gem"
ArgumentError: string contains null byte
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_reader/entry.rb:44:in
`join'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_reader/entry.rb:44:in
`full_name'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_input.rb:34:in
`block in initialize'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_reader.rb:46:in
`block in each'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_reader.rb:37:in `loop'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_reader.rb:37:in `each'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_input.rb:33:in
`initialize'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_input.rb:18:in `new'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package/tar_input.rb:18:in `open'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/package.rb:56:in `open'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/format.rb:67:in `from_io'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/format.rb:51:in `block in
from_file_by_path'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/format.rb:50:in `open'
from /opt/lib/ruby19/1.9.1/rubygems/format.rb:50:in `from_file_by_path'
from (irb):6
from /opt/bin/irb19:12:in `<main>'


--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestprac...
12 Answers

The Horny Goat

6/20/2014 1:36:00 AM

0

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:20:33 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I don't know if this will work for this scenario, but what about having a provision in the U.S. Constitution which states that slavery nationwide cannot be abolished by a Constitutional amendment (or in any other way by the federal government, such as via the legislative process). Rather, slavery can only be abolished on a state by state basis; in other words, a U.S. state can abolish slavery within its own territory/borders, but it has absolutely no say on whether or not other U.S. states keep slavery legal.

Wouldn't a mix of free and slave states have two effects - both
deleterious to the country:
(1) any escaped slave who crossed a border into a free state (either
by himself or via an Underground Railroad) automatically become free
and
(2) wouldn't you get vigilantes from slave states attempting to abduct
former slaves who had reached free territory? Or for that matter ANY
free black living in a free state. Sort of a reverse John Brown if you
will. Once you get a suitable "Martyr" it seems to me you quickly have
the sort of warfare described in #1.

I say #1 is problematic as it raises the potential for interstate
warfare. #2 is of course the "Twelve Years a Slave" scenario.

Given that the Feds have the authority to regulate interstate commerce
this could get real dicey real fast. Most particularly it would give
slaveowners the right to export slaves (see #2) outside the United
States.

Unfortunately I do think that Lincoln was right to say that you simply
could not have slave states and free states lasting permanently within
the same country.

David Tenner

6/20/2014 2:56:00 AM

0

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ecab4326-eb45-4ede-a03c-757ce575fb49@googlegroups.com:


>
> I don't know if this will work for this scenario, but what about having
> a provision in the U.S. Constitution which states that slavery
> nationwide cannot be abolished by a Constitutional amendment (or in any
> other way by the federal government, such as via the legislative
> process). Rather, slavery can only be abolished on a state by state
> basis; in other words, a U.S. state can abolish slavery within its own
> territory/borders, but it has absolutely no say on whether or not other
> U.S. states keep slavery legal.
>
> Thoughts on this?

That is *exactly* what the proposed Corwin Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin... provided in OTL--and
secessionists found it totally inadequate. They were not worried that
Congress (which in any event was not even controlled by Republicans before
the Deep South seceded) would pass a law outlawing slavery in the states.
Rather, it was feared that the Republican administration would undermine
slavery in more indirect ways--by denying the institution room to expand, by
admitting more and more free states to undermine the political power of the
South, by using federal patronage to build up an anti-slavery party in at
least the Upper South, by refusing to stop the circulation of "incendiary"
abolitionist publications in the mail, etc. Besides, as John Bell, hardly a
fire-eater, wrote, "The simple announcement to the public that a great party
at the North, opposed to Slavery, has succeeded in electing its candidate for
the Presidency, disguise it as we may, is well calculated to raise
expectations among the slaves, and might lead to servile insurrections in the
Southern States."
http://www.civilwar-online.com/2010/12/december-12-1860-john-be...
out.html

However unjustified some of these fears may have been, they are not the sort
of thing that a constitutional provision forbidding federal interference with
slavery in the states could put to rest. The secessionists' rejection of the
Corwin Amendment as an adequate remedy proves this.

--
David Tenner
dtenner@ameritech.net

AlexMilman

6/20/2014 4:29:00 AM

0

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:20:33 PM UTC-4, WolfBear wrote:
> On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:47:22 PM UTC-7, David Tenner wrote:
>
> > Challenge: What change, if any, in the drafting of the Constitution *which
>
> >
>
> > could plausibly have been adopted and ratified in the late 1780's* could have
>
> >
>
> > averted the ACW? It is hard to think of any change directly related to
>
> >
>
> > slavery that would not have fatally alienated some southerners or northerners
>
> >
>
> > whose support was needed for ratification (e.g., an explicit prohibition of,
>
> >
>
> > or guarantee of, slavery in all federal territories, or a change in the way
>
> >
>
> > slaves were counted for purposes of legislative apportionment) so it probably
>
> >
>
> > has to be something with a more indirect effect. For example, the small
>
> >
>
> > states, worried about the power of large states choosing their electors on
>
> >
>
> > statewide tickets, insist on a requirement that electors be chosen by
>
> >
>
> > congresional district, which would have made it harder for the Republicans to
>
> >
>
> > win the presidency in 1860 or maybe even thereafter.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Of course such a change might have plenty of earlier consequences, so you may
>
> >
>
> > say the Republican Party as we know it might not have existed in 1860. The
>
> >
>
> > basic point is the same, though--it would be harder for any anti-slavery
>
> >
>
> > party to win the presidency if it lost a substantial number of electoral
>
> >
>
> > votes in the North.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > David Tenner
>
> >
>
> > dtenner@ameritech.net
>
>
>
> I don't know if this will work for this scenario, but what about having a provision in the U.S. Constitution which states that slavery nationwide cannot be abolished by a Constitutional amendment (or in any other way by the federal government, such as via the legislative process). Rather, slavery can only be abolished on a state by state basis; in other words, a U.S. state can abolish slavery within its own territory/borders, but it has absolutely no say on whether or not other U.S. states keep slavery legal.
>
>
>
> Thoughts on this?

IMO, this would be anachronistic. With almost the same success you can propose
and article that prevents federal government from abolishing usage of the
horses. :-)

Who (of the people that mattered) at the time Constitution was written was
seriously considering a possibility of making slavery illegal? Surely not
Washington, Jefferson, etc.

Invid Fan

6/20/2014 8:37:00 PM

0

In article <555d3c7d-5da2-46f9-9f0f-2e6c995113c1@googlegroups.com>,
Alex Milman <alexmilman@msn.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:20:33 PM UTC-4, WolfBear wrote:

> > I don't know if this will work for this scenario, but what about having a
> > provision in the U.S. Constitution which states that slavery nationwide
> > cannot be abolished by a Constitutional amendment (or in any other way by
> > the federal government, such as via the legislative process). Rather,
> > slavery can only be abolished on a state by state basis; in other words, a
> > U.S. state can abolish slavery within its own territory/borders, but it has
> > absolutely no say on whether or not other U.S. states keep slavery legal.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts on this?

Well, couldn't THAT provision be changed by a Constitutional amendment?
Is there anything in the Constitution that can't be modified?

> Who (of the people that mattered) at the time Constitution was written was
> seriously considering a possibility of making slavery illegal? Surely not
> Washington, Jefferson, etc.
>
Jefferson, in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence,
listed slavery as one of the evils of England. The subject of slavery
was certainly an issue everyone was dancing around at the time.

--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

Larry Headlund

6/23/2014 2:07:00 PM

0

On Friday, June 20, 2014 4:37:17 PM UTC-4, Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <555d3c7d-5da2-46f9-9f0f-2e6c995113c1@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Alex Milman <alexmilman@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:20:33 PM UTC-4, WolfBear wrote:
>
>
>
> > > I don't know if this will work for this scenario, but what about having a
>
> > > provision in the U.S. Constitution which states that slavery nationwide
>
> > > cannot be abolished by a Constitutional amendment (or in any other way by
>
> > > the federal government, such as via the legislative process). Rather,
>
> > > slavery can only be abolished on a state by state basis; in other words, a
>
> > > U.S. state can abolish slavery within its own territory/borders, but it has
>
> > > absolutely no say on whether or not other U.S. states keep slavery legal.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Thoughts on this?
>
>
>
> Well, couldn't THAT provision be changed by a Constitutional amendment?
>
> Is there anything in the Constitution that can't be modified?

Article five, which sets forth the process of amendment. ends with "that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate". So it is usually held that equal suffrage is not subject to amendment. Interestingly, the other prohibitions in that article are actions interfering with the "importation of persons" before 1808 or direct federal taxes for the same date.

Invid Fan

6/23/2014 8:27:00 PM

0

In article <faefc19c-8b4a-408b-8a4f-fa263db24278@googlegroups.com>,
Larry Headlund <lmh@world.std.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 20, 2014 4:37:17 PM UTC-4, Invid Fan wrote:
> > In article <555d3c7d-5da2-46f9-9f0f-2e6c995113c1@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Alex Milman <alexmilman@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:20:33 PM UTC-4, WolfBear wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > I don't know if this will work for this scenario, but what about having
> > > > a
> >
> > > > provision in the U.S. Constitution which states that slavery nationwide
> >
> > > > cannot be abolished by a Constitutional amendment (or in any other way
> > > > by
> >
> > > > the federal government, such as via the legislative process). Rather,
> >
> > > > slavery can only be abolished on a state by state basis; in other
> > > > words, a
> >
> > > > U.S. state can abolish slavery within its own territory/borders, but it
> > > > has
> >
> > > > absolutely no say on whether or not other U.S. states keep slavery
> > > > legal.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Thoughts on this?
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, couldn't THAT provision be changed by a Constitutional amendment?
> >
> > Is there anything in the Constitution that can't be modified?
>
> Article five, which sets forth the process of amendment. ends with "that no
> state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the
> Senate". So it is usually held that equal suffrage is not subject to
> amendment.

Well, unless that state votes for the amendment :)

--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

Rich Rostrom

6/25/2014 7:28:00 PM

0

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't know if this will work for this scenario,
> but what about having a provision in the U.S.
> Constitution which states that slavery nationwide
> cannot be abolished by a Constitutional amendment
> (or in any other way by the federal government, such
> as via the legislative process). Rather, slavery can
> only be abolished on a state by state basis; in
> other words, a U.S. state can abolish slavery within
> its own territory/borders, but it has absolutely no
> say on whether or not other U.S. states keep slavery
> legal.

This would be equivalent to OTL's Corwin Amendment,
which was dismissed by the 1860 secessionists as
worthless.

The fear articulated by secession advocates was that if
the Federal government was in the hands of "abolitionists",
then Federal powers would be used to subvert slavery.
This would include appointing anti-slavery agents as U.S.
Marshals, Attorneys, and Judges in the slave states.

On top of this was the fear of "abolition fiends"
infiltrating the South to incite the slaves to arson
and murder. If the Federal government assisted them,
the danger would be much greater.

A final point: imagine a white overseer cracking a
whip over dozens of black slaves on a Mississippi
plantation, in a county that is 80% black, in a
state that is majority black. Why do the slaves
submit? Because behind that overseer are the other
white men of the plantation. Behind them are the
other white men of the county; behind them the
state government and its militia; and behind _them_
the U.S. government. Rebellious slaves could kill
the overseer, or perhaps take over the plantation,
or even the county, or even in theory the state -
but at every level such a success would be met
with overwhelming force from higher authority, and
the slaves know it.

Unless the Federal government - the highest
authority - drops out...
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevo...

rages

7/1/2014 10:19:00 PM

0

In article <XnsA351DF2D8DBEBdtennerameritechnet@216.168.3.30>,
David Tenner <dtenner@ameritech.net> wrote:
>WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:ecab4326-eb45-4ede-a03c-757ce575fb49@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>
>> I don't know if this will work for this scenario, but what about having
>> a provision in the U.S. Constitution which states that slavery
>> nationwide cannot be abolished by a Constitutional amendment (or in any
>> other way by the federal government, such as via the legislative
>> process). Rather, slavery can only be abolished on a state by state
>> basis; in other words, a U.S. state can abolish slavery within its own
>> territory/borders, but it has absolutely no say on whether or not other
>> U.S. states keep slavery legal.
>>
>> Thoughts on this?
>
>That is *exactly* what the proposed Corwin Amendment
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin... provided in OTL--and
>secessionists found it totally inadequate.

In 1861, when it was already hitting the fan.

If such a clause had been in the Constitution from the beginning, it
would be part of the political environment. Anti-secessionists would
have one more argument to use against the fire-eaters. Given that
immediate secession was only narrowly adopted in several of the southern
states, South Carolina might find it was seceding all by itself, and
reconsider. (All of this assuming that the existence of such a clause
hasn't produced changes prior to 1861 that eliminate the secession
crisis in that year.)

--
Kathy Rages

Insane Ranter

7/1/2014 10:28:00 PM

0

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_A...

David Tenner

7/2/2014 12:19:00 AM

0

rages@darkstar.arc.nasa.gov () wrote in
news:O9CdnWqMGogkri7OnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@posted.internetamerica:

> In article <XnsA351DF2D8DBEBdtennerameritechnet@216.168.3.30>,
> David Tenner <dtenner@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:ecab4326-eb45-4ede-a03c-757ce575fb49@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't know if this will work for this scenario, but what about having
>>> a provision in the U.S. Constitution which states that slavery
>>> nationwide cannot be abolished by a Constitutional amendment (or in any
>>> other way by the federal government, such as via the legislative
>>> process). Rather, slavery can only be abolished on a state by state
>>> basis; in other words, a U.S. state can abolish slavery within its own
>>> territory/borders, but it has absolutely no say on whether or not other
>>> U.S. states keep slavery legal.
>>>
>>> Thoughts on this?
>>
>>That is *exactly* what the proposed Corwin Amendment
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin... provided in OTL--and
>>secessionists found it totally inadequate.
>
> In 1861, when it was already hitting the fan.
>
> If such a clause had been in the Constitution from the beginning, it
> would be part of the political environment. Anti-secessionists would
> have one more argument to use against the fire-eaters. Given that
> immediate secession was only narrowly adopted in several of the southern
> states, South Carolina might find it was seceding all by itself, and
> reconsider. (All of this assuming that the existence of such a clause
> hasn't produced changes prior to 1861 that eliminate the secession
> crisis in that year.)
>

Not just Lincoln but even Radicals like Thaddeus Stevens asknowledged that
the federal governmnet had no power to outlaw slavery in the states. (And of
course the Republicans--let alone their most radical elements--didn't even
have a majority in Congress.) Secessionists had all sorts of arguments about
how Lincoln night endanger slavery in the South, but none of them involved
Congress (at any time in the near future) passing a law to outlaw slavery in
the states.

--
David Tenner
dtenner@ameritech.net