Cannot install gems

Environment: Kubuntu Linux 13.4 | rvm 1.21.3 (stable) | ruby 1.8.7
(2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]

I’m following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying
to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book’s code
was run.

I can install gems in my ruby 2.0.0, but not in ruby 1.8.7. Here’s an
example of the problem -

Terminal output:
[email protected]:/$ gem install rails-3.0.0 ERROR: Could not find a valid gem
‘rails-3.0.0’ (>= 0) in any repository ERROR: Possible alternatives:
rails800 [email protected]:/$

I’m getting that same “Could not find…” message with other gems.

Then I get this:

$ ping rubygems.org
PING rubygems.org (54.245.255.174) 56(84) bytes of data.
^C
rubygems.org ping statistics —
29 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 28222ms

I don’t have a deep understanding of any of this, being a rank amateur.
It appears that I can get to some gems (for Ruby-2.0.0) but not for
1.8.7.

Can anyone explain this? May I expect the problem to get resolved as a
matter of routine course?

t.

Tom C., MS MA
Cedar City / St. George, Utah, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
<< [email protected] >> (email) << TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< Sleightmind.com >> (mental health issues weblog)

Am 31.07.2013 05:20, schrieb Tom C.:

Environment: Kubuntu Linux 13.4 | rvm 1.21.3 (stable) | ruby 1.8.7
(2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]

I’m following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying
to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book’s code
was run.

If you absolutely must… but 1.8.7 is dead retired.

I can install gems in my ruby 2.0.0, but not in ruby 1.8.7. Here’s an
example of the problem -

Terminal output:
[email protected]:/$ gem install rails-3.0.0 ERROR: Could not find a valid gem
‘rails-3.0.0’ (>= 0) in any repository ERROR: Possible alternatives:
rails800 [email protected]:/$

I suspect you would have the same problem with ruby 2.0.0,
there is no rails-3.0.0 gem on rubygems.org.

Do you mean

gem install rails -v 3.0.0

?

$ ping rubygems.org
PING rubygems.org (54.245.255.174) 56(84) bytes of data.
^C
rubygems.org ping statistics —
29 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 28222ms

Same for me, but the site is running, and I can install gems.
Probably they don’t allow ping.

Regards,
Marcus

Marcus - thanks for your help…

On 07/31/2013 06:00 AM, [email protected] wrote:

Am 31.07.2013 05:20, schrieb Tom C.:

Environment: Kubuntu Linux 13.4 | rvm 1.21.3 (stable) | ruby 1.8.7
(2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]

I’m following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying
to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book’s code
was run.
If you absolutely must… but 1.8.7 is dead retired.
I’m well aware of this, but it IS the version used in the book, which we
are urged to use. I will be running the book’s code on Ruby 2.0.0 as
well.

Do you mean

gem install rails -v 3.0.0
Yes, that works. Regrettably, my life offers me irregular periods with
which to work with Ruby, and in between these periods I forget things. I
was clearly using the gem install command incorrectly.

?

$ ping rubygems.org
PING rubygems.org (54.245.255.174) 56(84) bytes of data.
^C
rubygems.org ping statistics —
29 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 28222ms
Same for me, but the site is running, and I can install gems.
Probably they don’t allow ping.
It appears I have been misled by Mr. Google!

Thanks for your help.

Tom

On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Tom C. [email protected] wrote:

If you absolutely must… but 1.8.7 is dead retired.
I’m well aware of this, but it IS the version used in the book, which we are
urged to use. I will be running the book’s code on Ruby 2.0.0 as well.

Well, they do say that, but that book was published in 2010, which means
it was finished in 2009, starting when (2005?) that old code was the
leading edge.

It may hold true that you might understand the code better if you work
in the same versions, however, how long can that possibly hold true for?
Hopefully, the authors will come up with an update (it is needed for
the code alone).

But I also think that admonition is false. You do not need to use their
exact same versions at all to get good learning from that book. The best
way I’ve found is to treat it not as a reference, but as a text book.

Here, really, lies the question: do you want to curtail your learning
chances by adhering strictly to a (strong) suggestion from a book that
is out of date, or get on with learning things using what is current?

On 07/31/2013 07:19 PM, Tamara T. wrote:

to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book’s code
was run.
If you absolutely must… but 1.8.7 is dead retired.
I’m well aware of this, but it IS the version used in the book, which we are
urged to use. I will be running the book’s code on Ruby 2.0.0 as well.
Well, they do say that, but that book was published in 2010, which means it was
finished in 2009, starting when (2005?) that old code was the leading edge.

It may hold true that you might understand the code better if you work in the
same versions, however, how long can that possibly hold true for? Hopefully, the
authors will come up with an update (it is needed for the code alone).

But I also think that admonition is false. You do not need to use their exact
same versions at all to get good learning from that book. The best way I’ve found
is to treat it not as a reference, but as a text book.

Here, really, lies the question: do you want to curtail your learning chances by
adhering strictly to a (strong) suggestion from a book that is out of date, or get
on with learning things using what is current?
Tamara,

Thanks for your thoughtful and useful response, which I only just now
saw. Much appreciated.

My root problem is that I’m a busy psychotherapist, with little time but
a strong desire to keep learning about programming and ruby. Having
watched ruby a lot, and used it very successfully for a few important
personal projects and explorations, I’m more than sold on its value to
me. Then, watching rspec and cucumber for a while, and having finally
become convinced that I need to learn test-driven development, I buy the
rspec book, as it appears to be the best way up the mountain.

But I labor always with the handicap of being a perpetual amateur in
this domain, so my judgment here is not what I would like. I’m grateful
to have access to this and other related discussion lists, for that
reason. I continue to marvel at the fact that people genuinely like
helping others. In my own field, I do a lot of free advising. Just can’t
resist, so I DO “get it”.

After some thought, I reached the same conclusion you advise above:
going ahead with current versions risks little, and the learning is
surely going to be more reliably relevant to the current state of
things. PLUS, if/when I’m bewildered by something, I can come here. And,
so far, there have been no problems.

I’m enjoy the book enormously. It’s far more valuable to me than I
anticipated. All in all, a great experience. Finding time to make
progress continues to be a problem. I just have to do a little at a
time.

Tom

Tom C., MS MA
Cedar City / St. George, Utah, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
<< [email protected] >> (email) << TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< Sleightmind.com >> (mental health issues weblog)

On 07/31/2013 07:19 PM, Tamara T. wrote:

to recreate the environment (ruby-1.8.7 etc.) in which the book’s code
was run.
If you absolutely must… but 1.8.7 is dead retired.
I’m well aware of this, but it IS the version used in the book, which we are
urged to use. I will be running the book’s code on Ruby 2.0.0 as well.
Well, they do say that, but that book was published in 2010, which means it was
finished in 2009, starting when (2005?) that old code was the leading edge.

It may hold true that you might understand the code better if you work in the
same versions, however, how long can that possibly hold true for? Hopefully, the
authors will come up with an update (it is needed for the code alone).

But I also think that admonition is false. You do not need to use their exact
same versions at all to get good learning from that book. The best way I’ve found
is to treat it not as a reference, but as a text book.

Here, really, lies the question: do you want to curtail your learning chances by
adhering strictly to a (strong) suggestion from a book that is out of date, or get
on with learning things using what is current?
Tamara,

Thanks for your thoughtful and useful response, which I only just now
saw. Much appreciated.

My root problem is that I’m a busy psychotherapist, with little time but
a strong desire to keep learning about programming and ruby. Having
watched ruby a lot, and used it very successfully for a few important
personal projects and explorations, I’m more than sold on its value to
me. Then, watching rspec and cucumber for a while, and having finally
become convinced that I need to learn test-driven development, I buy the
rspec book, as it appears to be the best way up the mountain.

But I labor always with the handicap of being a perpetual amateur in
this domain, so my judgment here is not what I would like. I’m grateful
to have access to this and other related discussion lists, for that
reason. I continue to marvel at the fact that people genuinely like
helping others. In my own field, I do a lot of free advising. Just can’t
resist, so I DO “get it”.

After some thought, I reached the same conclusion you advise above:
going ahead with current versions risks little, and the learning is
surely going to be more reliably relevant to the current state of
things. PLUS, if/when I’m bewildered by something, I can come here. And,
so far, there have been no problems.

I’m enjoy the book enormously. It’s far more valuable to me than I
anticipated. All in all, a great experience. Finding time to make
progress continues to be a problem. I just have to do a little at a
time.

Tom

Tom C., MS MA
Cedar City / St. George, Utah, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
<< [email protected] >> (email) << TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< Sleightmind.com >> (mental health issues weblog)

On 08/12/2013 09:26 PM, Tamara T. wrote:

(2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [i686-linux]
But I also think that admonition is false. You do not need to use their exact
same versions at all to get good learning from that book. The best way I’ve found
is to treat it not as a reference, but as a text book.

After some thought, I reached the same conclusion you advise above: going ahead
with current versions risks little, and the learning is surely going to be more
reliably relevant to the current state of things. PLUS, if/when I’m bewildered by
something, I can come here. And, so far, there have been no problems.

I’m enjoy the book enormously. It’s far more valuable to me than I anticipated.
All in all, a great experience. Finding time to make progress continues to be a
problem. I just have to do a little at a time.

Tom
That is great, Tom. I want to point out that (at least to me) THE single most
important statement in that book comes at the end of Robert Martin’s forward and
really gets to the heart of the matter.
You nailed it. That sense of good design - craftsmanship, in short - it
what got me INTO Ruby, and then again, after some months of slow
deliberation, into RSpec/Cucumber. I’m a sucker for good thinking and
lean design. I’m totally loving what I’m learning, just about good
programming practice, from the RSpec book. As a perpetual amateur, this
is the best stuff I’ve yet encountered, and it’s already serious
changing how I think about the personal programs I write. I’m very
grateful!

t.

Tom C., MS MA
Cedar City / St. George, Utah, U.S.A: (435) 272-3332
<< [email protected] >> (email) << TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< Sleightmind.com >> (mental health issues weblog)

On Aug 12, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Tom C. [email protected] wrote:

I’m following the advice of the authors of /The Rspec Book/, and trying
Here, really, lies the question: do you want to curtail your learning chances
by adhering strictly to a (strong) suggestion from a book that is out of date, or
get on with learning things using what is current?
I’m enjoy the book enormously. It’s far more valuable to me than I anticipated.
All in all, a great experience. Finding time to make progress continues to be a
problem. I just have to do a little at a time.

Tom

That is great, Tom. I want to point out that (at least to me) THE
single most important statement in that book comes at the end of Robert
Martin’s forward and really gets to the heart of the matter.