transfire at gmail.com
Tue Mar 27 17:53:49 EDT 2007
On 3/27/07, Austin Ziegler <halostatue at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Chad Woolley <thewoolleyman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What about the potential duplication and conflict of versions? For
> > example, if you multiple versions of a dependency installed as
> > first-class gems, then other multiple (and possibly duplicated and
> > conflicting) versions "bundled" in with another first-class gem, which
> > ones "win"? What goes on the load path first? Does it depend on the
> > circumstances (which one is loaded first)?
> I'm not saying that I buy Trans's reasoning for the need for this --
> I've long thought that Facets should be a lot more granular than it is
> and a lot of the things that Trans has tried to push on Ruby that I
> have thought ill-considered over the last two years has been because
> Facets is not granular at all.
"Push" is overstating it of course. I make suggestions like anyone
else. And as far as I can recall there was only one suggestion with
regards to Facets --escape sequences for require/load file paths,
which I've already agreed with you was a bad idea. Was there something
In anycase, I've come to agree with you about Facets. Threre's a core
set of it which I think is good to be in a single package, but as
Facets has grown some parts have made it too heavy. I've been wanting
to do something about it for a while now. But I'm stuck without
something like gembundles in order to properly support some of my
> That said, my understanding of what Trans wants to do is to bundle a
> group of gems in a gembundle. That bundle would then silently install
> the bundled gems as normal. To put it a bit more concretely, let's use
> a simple example:
> * I decide to make a Text bundle (version 1.0) that contains
> Text::Format (1.1) and Text::Hyphen (1.0) and Text::Reform (0.9).
> * I have Text::Hyphen 2.0 installed already.
> The Text bundle will install Text::Format 1.1, Text::Hyphen 1.0, and
> Text::Reform 0.9 and not touch Text::Hyphen 2.0. Therefore, I will
> have Text::Hyphen (1.0, 2.0) in my gem list.
> The only problem I can see is the case where I already have
> Text::Hyphen 1.0 installed. The concern here is that, for all of the
> problems that Mauricio points out with the gem authority issues and
> the mirrors, a bundle would represent a more direct way of inserting
> malicious code in place of a previously known good version UNLESS the
> bundle installer refused to install a version that was currently
That's a reasonable precaution. I mean, it's a minor issue since
there's always a risk with installing software, but sure, it wouldn't
hurt. Also, keep in mind that each bundled gem can be signed.
> I'm still not sold on the concept, but the trick here isn't to add yet
> another place for Ruby to look for code, but for a bundled
> distribution environment.
More information about the Rubygems-developers