[Rubygems-developers] Gem dependencies and the next release

Gavin Sinclair gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Thu Apr 22 10:26:48 EDT 2004

On Thursday, April 22, 2004, 9:43:52 PM, Dick wrote:

> IMO a gem should be able to tell us what it needs, so this 
> would be the right place to do the checks.

I'm leaving this area of implementation to others, but "yes", we
definitely need to be able to show the user a dependency tree for a
given gem.  That feature obviously has a lot in common with the
current subject of discussion.

>> IMHO, just like when installing, Rubygems should ensure that the system
>> is not left in a broken state when removing packages.

> That's essential IMO. If it can be done cleanly, that's great.
> I think a temporary solution at least is needed before a next release.

I don't think it's that urgent.  The gem population is small enough at
the moment [1] that you can easily uninstall everything and reinstall
what you need in a short time.

I don't mind this feature going in, but I don't want to delay the next
release much longer.

The only two features I think are important for the next release:
* gem_path [2] in the config file should work
* plain require 'package' should work when package is a gem

The first one ain't that important, but it ain't that hard either, and
it's in the spec :)  The second one, I think, is important to disarm
resistance.  And it's a good idea, I think.  Backwards compatibility
is a good thing, and I don't think there's a real drawback.


[1] but growing nicely
[2] can we please change the environment variable from RUBY_GEMS to

More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list