From: Intransition <transfire@...>
Date: 2010-04-21T04:05:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Proposing a Ruby Packaging Standard



On Apr 20, 12:35 pm, Joel VanderWerf <joelvanderw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Intransition wrote:
> > 1) Change "Executables SHOULD NOT require 'rubygems' or modify the
> > $LOAD_PATH" to a "MUST NOT". There's no reason to do this in an
> > executable.
>
> Except for the _gem_ executable itself, or any other executable that
> needs to operate on gems. SHOULD NOT was the right call.

Clearly the gem command itself is necessary exception --it *is*
rubygems. I would suggest any other library that "operates on gems"
still use a lib/ file and require that in their executable. But the
rule applies even in lib/, so here again it is an exceptional case
when one is specifically extending/augmenting rubygems. The rules
intent is to address all other cases. So perhaps the best phrasing is
still "MUST" but with a qualification concerning libraries designed
for extending/augmenting rubygems.