From: Hans Fugal <hfugal@...>
Date: 2004-06-25T02:18:06+09:00
Subject: Re: rubygems thoughts

Jim Weirich wrote:

> A two-part response to your question...
> 
> (1) Gems can be installed with a "stub" in the standard library location. 
> This stub requires rubygems, then requires your package with the proper
> version, providing a transparent access layer for gems.  Stubs are now
> installed by default (controlled by an option on the gem command line).

Ok, that seems like a great solution. Guess not all the docs have been 
updated to reflect that on the wiki.

> (2) One of the benefits of rubygems is the ability to specify some version
> control over what gems get used with your library/application.  If you
> wish to take advantage of version control, then you necessarily become
> dependent on the gems.

Naturally. I like the idea of consolidating this that you gave.

>>If gems is successful, it will
>>grow quickly, perhaps even exponentially. Sending them by email to an
>>individual is going to quickly become a bottleneck in that case. So
>>there needs to be an upload system, preferably with gpg signing.
> 
> 
> For now, if you create a project on RubyForge and upload a GEM file, the
> gem will automatically be served by the rubyforge gemserver.  Use gem -Rl
> to get a list of gems.

Ah, nifty. That's the spirit.