From: darren kirby <bulliver@...>
Date: 2007-05-08T06:27:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Gem-only releases

quoth the Lyle Johnson:
> On 5/4/07, Marc Heiler <shevegen@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> > My point now is, though - please please please - consider
> > to also release non-gem versions IF you do release a
> > gem version of your library!
>
> I read through your post a couple of times and I still haven't found
> the part where you explain why gems aren't getting the job done, and
> why library authors should therefore provide their libraries in
> non-gem formats.

Well, personally, I like choice so I provide my libs in gems, and also in 
tarballs/zips for the non-gems using Unix/Windows crowd.

The problem now arises in apps that use said libs. If the lib was installed 
via gems then the app needs "require 'rubygems'" to work. This will throw an 
error for those folks who prefer not to use gems, and don't have it 
installed. So: I have to put boilerplate in the app:

begin
  require 'rubygems'
rescue LoadError
end

so that it may work for both. I plain and simple don't understand why 
the  "require 'rubygems'" is required (pardon the pun), to make gem installed 
libs visable to Ruby.

Now really, I'm just a dilatant in this whole software development biz and 
realize the core Ruby hackers are a lot smarter than me, so I am sure there 
is a sound technical reason for it or it wouldn't be. That said, I would sure 
love to hear a rational for it...  

-d
-- 
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."
- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972