From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2005-10-03T09:06:28+09:00 Subject: Re: why can't Ruby load .gem files directly? On 10/2/05, Joshua Haberman wrote: > On Oct 2, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote: >> I also believe that the *right* way for package management systems to >> work with RubyGems is to *use* RubyGems and the facilities it offers >> (or will offer) to install gems. > Why? Because RubyGems offers several features -- package and API version management, easy package install/uninstall, etc. > What compelling reason is there to use "gem install" over "tar xf"? Every reason. > There are many cases where "gem install" is not suitable, but "tar > xf" is. I'd love to know one, for a .gem. Seriously. There's absolutely *no* advantage to untarring a gem, and (IMO) serious disadvantages. Why would you even think about forgoing what RubyGems offers? And, frankly, if you're on Windows, "tar xf" is never the right answer. This is why a Ruby solution is superior -- it's platform agnostic. It's also why *I* will never accept a solution that *solely* goes a Unix way. -austin -- Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca