From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2005-09-29T01:15:34+09:00
Subject: Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system (Re: Require Namepaces and RubyGems' effect on LoadPath problem)

On 9/28/05, James Britt <ruby@jamesbritt.com> wrote:
> Tom Copeland wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 20:56 +0900, Sean E. Russell wrote:
> >>Incidentally, last time I checked, Gems *still* didn't work behind an
> >>authenticating firewall, despite the fact that I can get through with wget
> >>--proxy-user.  There is nothing -- NOTHING -- worse than trying to install
> >>something that depends on a library that is *only* distributed via a gemfile.
> >>This makes the package impossible to install.
> > Hm... I think you can download the Gem that the library depends on and
> > do a install with:
> >
> > gem install --local foo.gem
> Yes, and I think gems' behavior in this is regard is no worse, and
> possibly better, than installing a lib using install.rb, in the cases
> where the installation process complains that you are missing a
> dependency.  You again have to go find something on the 'net and
> download it by hand.
>
> Indeed, if you omit rubygem's ability to fetch things via http, and were
> required to copy all gems locally before installing, it becomes little
> different than running tar -xzvf and then install.rb.  Except gems are
> easier.

Especially on Windows, where tar is hardly standard.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca