⚠ This page is served via a proxy. Original site: https://github.com
This service does not collect credentials or authentication data.
Skip to content

Conversation

@JasonLunn
Copy link

Fixes #9244

@Edouard-chin
Copy link
Contributor

I also encountered this code a few weeks ago and couln't figure out why it was needed. FWIW it was added in 20cdf22b844 but I can't find the original rubyforge discussion that led to this change.

@hsbt
Copy link
Member

hsbt commented Jan 14, 2026

@JasonLunn Can you add test for this? I couldn't confirm this change works correctly.

@Edouard-chin
Copy link
Contributor

@matthewd Found the rubyforge discussion. This is the reason this patch was applied

https://web.archive.org/web/20140515164351/http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2006-July/002047.html

I filed a bug report about this this morning, but just wanted to
mention it here briefly. RubyGems 0.9.0 introduced a bug for
installing compiled extensions; in addition to doing the "make" and
"make install" steps of the build process, it now follows up with a
"make clean", which deletes the object files (.o) and the extension
shared library (
.so). And, you know, that sort-of defeats the
purpose. ;)

and the patch was proposed here https://web.archive.org/web/20140515164338/http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2006-July/002056.html

@JasonLunn
Copy link
Author

Regression test added.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Automatic ordering of extensions during validation conflicts with ordered nature of building gem extensions

3 participants