mfp at acm.org
Fri Mar 23 13:47:27 EDT 2007
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 10:11:35AM -0400, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 3/23/07, TRANS <transfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/23/07, Eric Hodel <drbrain at segment7.net> wrote:
> > > Why not release it as a separate gem, let it develop for a while, and
> > > if people use it, it can be included in RubyGems at a future date?
> > > Bundling with RubyGems is going to reduce opportunities for rapid
> > > improvement.
> > Okay. Well I can do that. It's pretty drop-dead simple though. Do you
> > have any reason to suspect it's a bad idea?
> Yeah; it's shelling out for tar. Use Archive::Tar::Minitar instead and
> then you only depend on RubyGems and can script that appropriately
> (see Patrick's questions recently on automating Gems).
If you don't want an extra dependency, you can as well use
rubygems/package.rb; it's the code Archive::Tar::Minitar was derived from.
AFAIK it has barely changed since it was written in 2004 (only signed packages
and a workaround for a win32+zlib issue come to mind, but those didn't affect
the basic tar read/write functionality), so if you use it your code is nearly
guaranteed to work with all RubyGems setups out there.
Mauricio Fernandez - http://eigenclass.org - singular Ruby
** Latest postings **
Rich exception hierarchies, multiple inheritance in Ruby
Towards compatibility with Ruby 1.9: Rails, Rake, RubyGems...
More information about the Rubygems-developers