[Rubygems-developers] Design notes for RubyGems 2
gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Tue Jun 8 18:19:19 EDT 2004
On Wednesday, June 9, 2004, 3:30:47 AM, Mauricio wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 01:44:02AM +1000, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>> Then again, I haven't heard your point of view on how a repository
>> concept should be implemented yet. I'm looking forward to it :)
>> At the moment, it's quite ridiculous that when you run 'gem -i rpa',
>> gem will quite happily remote install 'rpa', even though you've
>> already got the latest version installed. That's a symptom of the
>> process-based approach, I believe. If it were easy to change this, I
> Funny enough, rpa-base is relatively process-oriented but the "abridged
> metadata" of all available ports is cached locally. There's a pretty
> stupid RepositoryInfo which is responsible for getting the metadata from
> a number of local/remote sources; it returns Port objects which know how
> to download their associated sources. That said, I deliberately avoided
> self-installable Port objects, because (in rpa-base at least) that's way
> too complex for those poor little objects (due to atomic transactions &
> stuff) ;)
I have no intentions of Gem objects installing themselves. None
whatsoever. I did once, but quickly realised - with some help from
this list :) - that that's an inappropriate mixing of concerns.
>> It's not too hard for me to imagine starting from scratch at this
>> point in RubyGems' life. Thus my enthusiasm for these ideas. BTW
>> starting from scratch doesn't mean junking the current code.... until
>> it's been fully replaced.
> Would RubyGems 2 remain compatible regarding:
> * package format
> * gem_spec "syntax"
Yes, on all three counts.
More information about the Rubygems-developers