From: Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>
Date: 2004-03-25T07:33:30+09:00
Subject: Re: RubyGem and Rake

Jim Menard wrote:
> Jim Menard <jimm@io.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>I'm switching over to using RubyGems. I like it!
>>
>>When I removed the "normal" Rake install and typed "gem --remote-install
>>rake", it succeeded with the message "Successfully installed rake version
>>0.3.1".
>>
>>It took me a while to find the "rake" executable, though. It used to go in
>>/usr/local/bin/rake, but it looks like it is now in
>>/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9/rake-0.3.1/lib/rake.
> 
>                                           ^^^
>                                    oops:  bin
> 
>>Do all executables installed by gems go in the gem directory instead of
>>/usr/local? If so, I would like to suggest that gems put their executables in
>>/usr/local/ instead, so that users don't have to modify their paths by adding
>>a new directory each time they install a new gem.

Warning: The following comments have a 50% chance of being wrong. :)

My understanding is that gems currently are good for libs, not
necessarily for apps.

Also I think that a large part of what gems are about is versioning --
e.g., you might want to keep multiple versions of Foo around.

However, I agree with you about making it as usable as possible.

What's the answer? Chad, Gavin, others?


Hal