[Rubygems-developers] Missing functions
jim at weirichhouse.org
Thu Jun 2 17:40:37 EDT 2005
Thanks, Lothar, for the feedback.
Lothar Scholz said:
> First i found the following things missing:
> 1) Specifications for Remote Gems are not retrievable
This is a good idea ... done right, we could also use it to do incremental
updates the the source cache. This gets more and more important as the
number of gems keeps increasing.
> 2) "gem check" seems not to work for individual file as
> i can't set a gemname. But why do we then have a --version option ?
> It is very important to run unit tests and other checks (alien
> files) on a specific gem.
Ryan's comments are correct, this is more of a file integrity check than a
unit test runner. (Hmmm ... although the comment on the -v option does
mention unit tests. I'll check this out and get back to you.)
I could have sworn that unit testing was broken out into a separate
command. Perhaps I was thinking about the rdoc command which is now a
separate command. I agree, test needs the same treatment.
> 3) Give a detailed description of a GEM.
> Simply dumping a YAML file of the Specification is a easy hack but
> it's not what people want to see, especially on a front end. So a
> more readable output (like the "dependency" which is already
> implemented) should be implemented.
Ok, I hear you. There's a lot of information in the gem. Any thoughts on
how you would like to see it displayed.
Although, if you are doing a front end, I would imagine the YAML would be
what you want for easy parsing.
> 4) Update should also work on individual gems or list of gems.
> Updating all gems is too restrictive as it results in unwanted
> garbage on your disk and huge downloads.
The update command should work for invidual gems. Are you having problems
-- Jim Weirich jim at weirichhouse.org http://onestepback.org
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
More information about the Rubygems-developers