[Rubygems-developers] New Gem format?

Chad Fowler chad at chadfowler.com
Wed Jul 28 09:48:49 EDT 2004



On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Mauricio [iso-8859-1] Fernández wrote:

# 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.
#

Can you give us some examples?

Chad



More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list