From: Cali Wildman Date: 2008-06-25T13:55:41+09:00 Subject: Re: Difference between site_ruby and gems Jano Svitok wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 22:34, Cali Wildman > wrote: >> I am trying to understand the difference between site_ruby (Ruby >> extensions and libraries) and gems. I read that extensions are generally > > site_ruby is directory for global addons for ruby. > .../lib/ruby/1.8 contains the default libraries > .../lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8 contains additional libraries - one of them > is rubygems. > .../lib/ruby/gems contains stuff for rubygems library (large part of > that stuff happens to be the installed gems) > > site_ruby is a site-wide place (= for all users on that computer) for > additional libraries that is automatically on the search path. > >> meant for more low-level type extensions usually written say in C. >> However, in my current setup, I use htree which is deployed as an >> extension but AFAIK written entirely in Ruby. Does anyone know why >> something like htree shouldn't be deployed as a gems instead? > > Nobody packaged the lib as a gem yet. You may try yourself, and > eventually send the result to the author/maintainer. > Read the docs for rubygems, pick source for another gem, see how it is > done and imitate. Hoe/echoe gems might be > useful for the conversion - they provide templates etc. Thanks for the confirmation, I subsequently found out that same thing after posting the thread. My understanding is that site_ruby is a core part of Ruby before RubyGems came along. Now there are 2 ways to add extensions / libraries and it would seem that htree's author never packaged it as a gem as you said. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.