[Rubygems-developers] "Default" Gem Repositories?
luislavena at gmail.com
Fri Apr 25 17:06:31 EDT 2008
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Chad Woolley <thewoolleyman at gmail.com> wrote:
> If everyone has their own gem repo, then maybe it is a pointless to
> try and avoid having separate repositories for JRuby gems, etc.
Mmm, since long time ago I was hosting my own repo at the office,
since we use pre-build gems for things that will require a compiler
(thats not only for our windows servers, but also linux ones).
> Is this something to be concerned about?
The way they are asking for release gem requires the direct usage of a
gemspec file. By today, almost all the gems I know depend on a
Rakefiles instead to generate and workaround some issues related to
platform specific code, dependencies or even Version numbers.
Also, do releases of new gems just based on changes to gemspec doesn't
sounds right, at least to me.
> What is the future of gems.rubyforge.org?
> What happens when newbies hear about a cool new gem, but don't know to
> look elsewhere than gems.rubyforge.org?
The publisher/developer of the new cool gem should state in his ann or
blog post: gem install cool_gem --source http://...
I think rubyforge gem repository is big enough to be considered the
main and central repository of gems.
> Should the git repo go into the default .gemrc as a standard source?
> If so, why? If not, why?
I don't like gem install install things that didn't follow a good
release policy, if I want to play with hot stuff, I'll put my hands in
the kitchen myself, and not let rubygems do it for me.
> Does this have any implications for caching/performance issues in rubygems?
I think is just another repository like you could have with one
installed locally via .gemrc.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so.
More information about the Rubygems-developers