[Rubygems-developers] Specifying equivalent modules?

Jim Weirich jim.weirich at gmail.com
Thu Apr 19 07:10:50 EDT 2007

On 4/19/07, Thomas Palmer <public at bagotricks.com> wrote:
> 1. "gem install" doesn't default to the current platform (in my tests),
> so people are forced to choose instead of letting install just work.

yes, but this is easily solvable ... its on the todo list for the gems
team.  This issue will just push it to the front of the list.

> 2. I can't install and have active in the same local repo multiple
> platforms of the same gem (i.e., different ones active for different
> platforms).

Really?  I think the repository structure should support this.  We
might need some extra logic in the activate code to make sure we get
the right platform.

> 3. People getting confused when saying "Hey, this library doesn't work
> according to docs!" and mistaking the responsible party. Maybe that can
> be somewhat mitigated by clarifying in the author and other fields of
> the platform-specific gem.

Yes, I don't know what to do about that.  I think that if you were to
offer a java based version of any current gem, you would want to work
with the original author anyways ...to coordinate releases and keep
compatibility, etc.  Under today's RubyForge structure, you would have
to publish the gem from the same RubyForge project, but that doesn't
mean you have to share the same SVN repository.

-- 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 mailing list