[Rubygems-developers] local, remote, and....

Gavin Sinclair gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Tue Oct 5 10:53:06 EDT 2004

On Tuesday, October 5, 2004, 10:59:40 PM, Hugh wrote:

>> I've suggested this in the past: that home-directory gems be
>> explicitly considered.  It didn't wash, as people can use the

> Why not || can you point me at the thread?

>From 18 March this year:

    > What about:
    >   gem -i ruby-doom --system    # I prefer this as default.
    >   gem -i ruby-doom --user      # Use $HOME/.gems or something.
    > Then require_gem should search both places.  Of course, then the
    > "list" and "search" operations need to take it into account.  So the
    > following permutations are possible:
    >   gem --list --user            # Implies --local
    >   gem --list --system          # Implies --local
    >   gem --list --local           # Lists user and system packages
    >   gem --list --remote          # Lists remote packages
    >   gem --list                   # Lists local and remote packages
    > (This assumes the interface I wrote about recently.)
    > Modifying all the operations to know about --user and --system might
    > be a fair bit of work, but I think it's very worthwhile.
    We have a --dir switch right now, along with the $GEM_PATH environment 
    variable.  I'm not sure whether --user and --system are needed in that 
    case.  It might be better to let people manage what that would mean to 
    them separately?

A lot has changed since then, and it's time to revisit the issue IMO.

>> 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
>> do?

> I was seeing it as just another (likely) place to keep things.  How
> do you see these classes then?

Explained in other email in this thread:

  --local and --remote are opposites
  --system and --user are opposites


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list