I was hoping to avoid Jem and the Holograms references in the general releases of JRuby...but perhaps nostalgia sells? Seriously though, it does sound and look a lot nicer. Our "jirb" is perhaps the most comfortable prefixing of J...although renaming "jruby" to "juby" is perhaps asking for trouble.
Very silly suggestion, but why not just call it jem?
The one thing I worry about is trying to install gems that require
compilation. The native MySQL bindings is a good example. Is jGems
going to prompt saying why this can't be installed? Is the same going
to hold true for dependencies?
-ZachOn
We have kicked around the idea of renaming the jruby script to ruby in the past, but of course that raises many other issues for those of us running both. The symlinking idea would work well for unixers, and adding a ruby.bat
file would work for Windows folks, but the intention here is that with n
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:03:50 -0500, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> We would like to include RubyGems 0.8.11 pre-installed in the next release
> of JRuby. However, there are a few issues with doing that we need to
> resolve:
>
> 1. The scripts RubyGems installs reference 'ruby' directly in their #! lin
We would like to include RubyGems 0.8.11 pre-installed in the next release of JRuby. However, there are a few issues with doing that we need to resolve:1. The scripts RubyGems installs reference 'ruby' directly in their #! line. This requires us to call "jruby bin/gem" to invoke them
We could possi
