[Rubygems-developers] Packaging gems that are not your own
gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Mon Sep 20 22:15:21 EDT 2004
On Tuesday, September 21, 2004, 11:55:23 AM, Chad wrote:
> On 20-Sep-04, at 9:45 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:12:10 -0400, Chad Fowler <chad at chadfowler.com>
>>> On 20-Sep-04, at 9:05 PM, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>> I'm planning to craete a few gems of existing packages and submit
>>>> (i.e. email them to Chad), for example the 'rdict' gem. Now what if
>>>> someone installs it and has a problem with it? They're going to look
>>>> at the spec and email the author, who might not appreciate the
>>>> suggestion that something "they" did (which they didn't) has stuffed
>>>> Is there sense in a "packager" attribute? As in:
>>>> spec.author = "Ian Caliban"
>>>> spec.email = "caliban at ..."
>>>> spec.packager = "Gavin Sinclair, gsinclair at ..."
>>>> It's a bit late for 0.8, obviously, and I'd like to create a number
>>>> gems in the coming weeks. But I'd like to know your thoughts on the
>>>> issue itself.
>>> I would recommend emailing the gemspec to the author (and/or a
>>> Rakefile) and ask if you can go ahead and release the finished gem.
>>> I've done that a couple of times, and the authors have started
>>> maintaining the gemspecs afterward.
>> I think this is okay, but I agree with Gavin, too, as it makes it
>> possible for RPA to use RubyGems as an alternative packaging format to
>> the packaging format of rpa-base.
> I think .packager is a reasonable optional spec attribute, but I think
> we should sleep on it for a day :)
Definitely. And while we're sleeping, consider which is better:
spec.packager = "Gavin Sinclair; gsinclair at ..."
spec.packager = "Gavin Sinclair"
spec.packager_email = "gsinclair at ..."
I prefer the former. It's information only, so doesn't need to be
exact. Besides, the latter is ugly and verbose.
More information about the Rubygems-developers