[Rubygems-developers] local, remote, and....
gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Tue Oct 5 07:56:04 EDT 2004
On Tuesday, October 5, 2004, 8:42:23 PM, Hugh wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that there be another category apart from local
> and remote. What I'm thinking of is this:
> Local gems are installed in the Ruby library area, only
> acessible by root (in many cases)
> Remote gems are off-site, and grabbed over the net.
> I'd like to suggest that there be user gems, with a path in the
> users home directory. This might be used for gems which are not
> widely useful to people, gems which are being tried out, etc.
> I was going to suggest --personal, but -p is already taken, so I'd
> suggest --user and -u.
> It would complicate path handling, increase the testing needed, but
> apart from that, does it seem sensible, or should people tackle this
> another way
I've suggested this in the past: that home-directory gems be
explicitly considered. It didn't wash, as people can use the
RUBYGEMS environment variable, etc., so the flexibility is there.
I don't see --user in the same class as local and remote. After all,
if you want to install a gem remotely into the user area, what do you
I still think it's a good idea to pursue this. We don't need to be
ultra-flexible. RubyGems should prefer to be easy to use and Do The
Right Thing. Allowing, and making it easy for, people to install gems
in their home directory should be The Right Thing, IMO.
One thing to consider: I don't think we are entirely consistent in
what we do with the RUBYGEMS variable and the config file. I don't
think gems get loaded from there when a require/require_gem is
performed. This is probably because the use-case for such flexibility
isn't perceived as being strong enough.
More information about the Rubygems-developers