[Rubygems-developers] Confusion on the use of 'executables' in gem specs

Chad Fowler chad at chadfowler.com
Sat Sep 11 08:36:57 EDT 2004

On Sep 10, 2004, at 11:57 PM, Jim Weirich wrote:

> It has come to my attention that there is some confusion about the use 
> of
> "executables" (and possibly "default_executable").  Should the values 
> in
> executables be
> 1) the basename of the executable file, or
> 2) the bindir + basename ?
> Previous to 0.8.0 I believe (1) to be the case (at least that's what 
> the
> rake gem does).  However the files accessor (which returns a list of 
> files
> needed for the gem) puts the unadorned executable names in the list of
> files (e.g. it adds "rake" instead of "bin/rake" to the file list).  
> This
> causes problems with rake because it doesn't know what to do the 
> unadorned
> file name.  Option (2) doesn't work either because then the executable
> stub installer gets the directories wrong.
> I'm thinking (1) is correct and that the files accessor should add 
> bindir
> to the executable before adding it to the list of files.
> Concur?

Yes, I think this was an oversight when specification.rb was revamped.  
I just put it back in.

Of course, you can set #executables to 
full/relative/path/executable_name, but you shouldn't set bindir in 
that case.


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list