[Rubygems-developers] Committed: generate library stub on install
chad at chadfowler.com
Mon Apr 26 20:47:42 EDT 2004
On 26/4/2004, at 11:56 AM, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
> Well, I've ironed out the errors, and it seems to work, but like
> Chad's latest effort, this needs a lot of testing, and some discussion
> as well.
> For example, after installing the 'fingerserver' gem:
> $ cat /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/fingerserver.rb
> # This file was generated by RubyGems.
> # The library 'fingerserver' is installed as part of a gem, and
> # this file is here so you can 'require' it easily (i.e.
> # without having to know it's a gem).
> require 'rubygems'
> require_gem 'fingerserver'
It looks like your --install-stub flag is passed all the way down to
the place where you would use it and then subtly ignore. :) I may be
wrong, but you might want to have a look.
> It's nothing terribly different from the application stub. Which, by
> the way, I'm not sure works (see other thread).... :-\
> Issues with this feature:
> - if you don't have write access to the site_ruby/1.x directory,
> tough luck
If you can manage to get the functional tests to work, this would be a
nice test to add (sane handling of permissions issues) and then fix. :)
> - it's not cleaned up during uninstall (same as app stub)
Whoops! Forgot about that with the app stub thing.
> - it only stubs the 'autorequire' file
> - this is intentional, but not well thought out
I think that's fine, personally.
> - it means that you can't go straight ahead and require
> x/y when x is the autorequire
But, you *could* require 'x' and then require 'x/y' if you were so
> -> this is a hole in the 'backwards-compatibility' layer, and
> will probably bite (only) a few people at some point
Agreed. We could hack require to deal with it, but I don't think it's
worth getting in Ruby's nether regions.
> Good night!
And to you.
More information about the Rubygems-developers