|
From: | Ben Woodcroft |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Help Ruby packages be reproducible |
Date: | Thu, 31 Dec 2015 22:03:03 +1000 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 |
On 31/12/15 09:52, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
I found one instance where bundler uses cached gems - when installing a bundle using --localOn 30/12/15 18:26, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:I wondered that too, but I built all of the ruby packages again without issue and many of them use bundler. It also doesn't seem like a good idea for bundler to use cached gems since I would guess that gems that are downloaded but fail to install are kept in the cache. I also wasn't able to see any mention of the cache in the rubygems API.Ben Woodcroft <address@hidden> writes:The .gem file stored in GEM_HOME after install is both redundant and anarchive that stores timestamped files which makes builds non-deterministic. Sodelete it after 'gem install'.Good idea! I don’t know if the existence of the cached gem is checked for by any Ruby tools (bundler or the like). Is there some documentation about this cache?
--localDo not attempt to connect to rubygems.org. Instead, Bundler will use the gems already present in Rubygems´ cache or in vendor/cache. Note that if a appropriate platform-specific gem exists on
rubygems.org it will not be found.This doesn't seem like a deal breaker for the deletion approach to me though.
ben
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |