[Rubygems-developers] Thoughts on handling bin and man files
Chad Fowler
chad at chadfowler.com
Fri Mar 19 12:04:58 EST 2004
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Richard Kilmer wrote:
#
# On Mar 19, 2004, at 11:22 AM, Chad Fowler wrote:
#
# > $ rake # runs rake out of a directory that's normally in the path
# > $ gem --run rake --version 0.3.0 # runs a specific version of the
# > rake
# > executable from its gem directory
#
# Hm...this creates an interesting issue.
#
# if you run the 'rake' script it would normally have:
#
# require 'rake'
#
# at the top of the script...this is bad...because if you just run this
# script the gem for rake has not been loaded.
#
# if this changes to...
#
# require 'rubygems'
# require_gem 'rake'
#
# ...then this executable script is dependent on RubyGems, which limits
# its usability outside of RubyGems (as a .tar.gz).
#
# now, what if the installed 'rake' executable was generated by our gem
# installer that would have:
#
# require 'rubygems'
# require_gem 'rake', "= 0.3.0" #=> or whatever version of the gem this
# was generated for.
# load 'bin/rake' #=> or whatever the binary that this is referring to
# is.
#
# then we would effectively be 'wrapping' the 'rake' executable script.
# Also, we could generate at .cmd on Win32 instead of a chmod +x script
# file. As well, its easier to identify these for removal upon gem
# uninstall.
#
I think this idea has grown into something good. I say this is what we
should go with!
Chad
More information about the Rubygems-developers
mailing list