requirements for native gems not free text?

Gary Weaver garysweaver at gmail.com
Wed Jan 30 14:19:12 UTC 2013


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Erik Hollensbe <erik at hollensbe.org> wrote:

> As callous as this sounds, this actually doesn't solve anything. The proof
> is in your examples -- they're a part of the standard library for the
> respective platforms.
>

Yep, you're right. Was grasping for tools at the end of the day to solve it
quickly, could tell that it wasn't listing all loaded libraries, and
shouldn't have hit send on that. Understand that otool and ldd are not
looking at libraries loaded dynamically in rubygems, etc., so sorry about
that.

The intention in the beginning was to try to discourage just using metadata
because that looks nasty. If a gem can extend Gem::Specification to add
additional methods like add_native_runtime_dependency, etc. then problems
with missing dependencies can be caught at the same time as the rest rather
than having to use something else later that looks at
Gem::Specification.metadata.

Maybe that isn't a good idea, though.


More information about the RubyGems-Developers mailing list