From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2007-01-30T03:11:31+09:00 Subject: Re: "ungem" script On 1/29/07, Sean Surname wrote: > Mike Harris wrote: > > Could you not just install with RubyGems and then invoke the absolute > > path of the file manually, instead of requiring or using the RubyGems > > bin wrapper? > It's a little trickier than that. You need to (1) make modules > available via ordinary 'require' instead of 'require_gem' (or whatever > we like to use today), (2) prevent "require 'rubygems'" from insinuating > rubygems into your program, and (3) still allow 'gem install foo' to > work for module authors that insiste upon only distributing gems. require_gem has not been required for a very long time, and is now deprecated. You just use "require" -- after, of course, patching require with "require 'rubygems'". Frankly, I think anyone who is worried about this is worrying too much about little things that don't make big differences. (Now, there are things that people who write gems should do to make it so that it doesn't matter whether you've installed a library directly or as a gem, but that's a slightly different issue than worrying about rubygems "intrusion" on runtime, which is nonsensical worrying.) -austin -- Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/ * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/ * austin@zieglers.ca