[Rubygems-developers] Specifying equivalent modules?
public at bagotricks.com
Thu Apr 19 00:26:59 EDT 2007
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> Well, but that's the point...we have to have a java-platformed mongrel,
> which means that Zed, who 'owns' the "mongrel" gem name, would have to
> be responsible for publishing a Java platform gem. As much as we'd like
> to just give our working Java code to gem owners, it seems unreasonable
> to expect that they'll all do this publishing for us, and it seems
> inappropriate for us to publish our own gem called "mongrel" that only
> supports Java.
On this topic, if you specify a gem platform, you get a gem named like so:
And it can coexist in a remote (or even local repo) with platformless
versions or versions for other platforms. When installing, you get a
menu of choices. Probably could just drop in the "-java" version into
RubyForge's repo, but it risks social strain perhaps.
And it has the other drawbacks I mentioned. And I bet you could get
complaints on the "please choose your gem" (or however that's worded)
menu for gems that previously didn't have the pain.
Maybe that "provides" idea from darix could work. So install would be
different but local use would be fine. (Note that I'd still like to see
different local gems defaulting to be active for different local rubies,
even multiple installs of normal ruby.)
More information about the Rubygems-developers