[Rake-devel] Rakefile optional when using a rake directory

Hugh Sasse hgs at dmu.ac.uk
Mon Feb 25 08:20:43 EST 2008

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Trans wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Jim Weirich <jim.weirich at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 2008, at 9:19 PM, Trans wrote:
> >  > But of course that's not what I'd like to have either. It's isn't as
> >  > useful that way --if I have a Rakefile it's a fairly simple mater of
> >  > loading other rake scripts by hand, and I can conditionally control
> >  > that if I want too. I'd like it so the Rakefile itself can be done
> >  > without.  (Plus I don't like the name rakelib --all my other
> >  > directories are 3-4 charchters long --picky I know ;-)
> >
> >  Use -R to change the name of rakelib to whatever you want.  If you
> >  want to get rid of the Rakefile itself, create an empty file somewhere
> >  convenient and use the -f option to specify it.  And since you
> >  probably don't won't to type all that stuff out, create a small alias
> >  or batch file for it.  All the tools are there.
> Would it help if I said, "Please"?
> Please... with sugar on top.

Can I suggest you explain your goal a bit more?  Why do you want
things to work this different way?  People come to rake with the
expectation that it is like a Ruby Make, and has a Rakefile as a
result of that heritage.  Why is it good to break that metaphor?
You've explained how you would like things to work, but not why, or
how this would help Rake users in general in the future.  At the
moment I know to look for a ./configure, a Makefile, a Rakefile, or
a setup.rb in a downloaded ruby project.  This approach would give
me more things to consider to understand what is going on.

> T.


More information about the Rake-devel mailing list