From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2004-10-10T08:08:04+09:00
Subject: Re: Definitive method for managing ruby installations

On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 05:09:21AM +0900, Jim Weirich wrote:
> James Edward Gray II wrote:
> >On Oct 9, 2004, at 5:43 AM, Chad Fowler wrote:
> >
> >>They can coexist peacefully.
> >
> >
> >Just curious.  I think I read in the Pickaxe II that RubyGems uses 
> >library stubs by default now?  (Please, correct me if I'm wrong.)  Would 
> >you need to shut this behavior off if you use both, to keep it from 
> >clobbering an RPA installed library?
> 
> RubyGems 0.8.0 and later do not use library stubs.  They were abandoned 
> because they prevented gems from managing multiple simultaneous versions 
> of a library.

AFAIK RubyGems pre-0.8.0 could manage simultaneous versions fine.
I believed that the main problem with library stubs was... the stubs
themselves, because they were essentially unmanaged and could be
overwritten when installing manually etc (rpa-base never overwrites
anything it doesn't own unless told to).

> However, if you install the *same* library with both RPA and Gems, it's 
> a toss up one which one will actually be chosen at runtime.

The RubyGems version will always be chosen if the "require hack"
(-rubygems or RUBYOPT=rubygems) is in place, if I have understood the
code correctly.

-- 
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com