[Rubygems-developers] New Gem format?

Mauricio Fernández batsman.geo at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 28 07:34:18 EDT 2004


On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:05:18PM +1000, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
> > As a side note, concerning the latter: it should be made clear that 
> >   require 'rubygems'
> >   require_gem "foo"
> > offers no advantage vs
> >   require 'foo'
> > now that stubs are created by default. 
> 
> > I've never found a 'qualified' (e.g. require_gem 'foo', ">1.0")
> > require_gem in the wild, which is the only case where it makes sense.
> 
> It's early days yet, my friend!  I don't think there would be too many
> require_gem's in the wild at all, would there?

I've found many lately.  Most of them hidden in the unit tests, and with
deps. undeclared in the gemspec.

I've also found sw. released only as uninstallable gems :-)) ; no
CVS, no .tar.gz, only gems that couldn't be installed due to broken,
unsatisfiable dependencies.

-- 
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com



More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list