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