[Rubygems-developers] Config clash

Gavin Sinclair gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Wed Sep 15 11:37:50 EDT 2004


On Thursday, September 16, 2004, 1:16:44 AM, Mauricio wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 12:02:54AM +1000, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>> As for getting your hands on the code, remember the beauty of 'gem
>> unpack' :)
>> 
>>   gem install dev-utils
>>   gem unpack dev-utils

> Then I'd have to wait for the gem :-) Btw, isn't it possible to unpack
> without install?

No.  Not a bad idea, but little gain.  Just install, unpack, and
uninstall if it comes to that.

> There's a more fundamental issue however. A gem is already a package,
> but some people absolutely want access to the original sources. In
> practice, it often doesn't make any difference, but lately rake is
> becoming increasingly popular, and many people use it as a sort of build
> phase to reorganize the sources, etc...

That's a per project consideration.  And that particular territory is
an area I haven't canvassed yet, and don't really plan to.  Organising
Ruby code is simple enough, once you get used to it.  I dislike
"build" steps.

> Additionally, sometimes there are bugs in the packaging (gem) but not
> in the pristine sources; there's no reason for those who don't use the
> gem directly to be bitten by them.

I don't understand.  What kind of bugs in the packaging?  And how
would someone who's not using the packaging get bitten by a bug in the
packaging?

>> And you're welcome to the CVS, but some stuff will change between now
>> and release.
>> 
>> > If it's ready, please consider a .tar.gz release; looks like you'd only
>> > have to copy Aoki's setup.rb into the sources. After all, RubyGems 0.8.0
>> > is taking far longer than expected.
>> 
>> It's not *really* ready.  It'll be a 0.0.1 release: useful, but young
>> and prone to rapid change.

> Then'd I'd consider packaging it as 0.0.0 ;-)

>> I'll certainly do a tgz release, painful though that is :)

> You can also release the pristine sources without any installer, just
> for other repackagers/ppl who like installing by hand.

I suspect the size of the latter set is 0.  Is there a good precedent
for releasing pristine sources?  At the very least, I'll copy
setup.rb.  The annoying thing about that is having to test it and
support it.  It's so tempting to say "get it from RubyGems or RPA" and
leave it at that :)

Gavin



More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list