Yeah, I've grown to love the way merb keeps all its gems in its own private Rubygem repository. Using thor to install the gems actually works ok, but I'd love a quick way to install all the gems I've already defined in my dependencies.rb and not have to worry about duplicating this list in dependencies.yml.
I'd propose updating the thor task to load dependencies.rb. So it would have to run it as ruby code, stubbing out the dependency call so that it keeps the value in a collection. Then iterate the collection to install the gems the same way you're doing with dependencies.yml. We actually don't need to drop support for dependencies.yml since we can merge them both into the same collection and run the gem installations on all of them. If this sounds like the right approach (maybe its not), then I'd be happy to take on implementation of it. Thanks On Nov 23, 1:32 pm, "Yehuda Katz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You are correct kind sir. > -- Yehuda > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Ted Han <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > i'm guessing Yehuda means dependencies.yml not merb.yml. > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Yehuda Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > merb.yml is pretty much a convenience that isn't really an official part > > of > > > Merb (it's provided by merb.yml to help with some cases where the regular > > > bundling strategy wasn't working). We're going to be working on a better, > > > more DRY solution for bundling that can work with merb.thor and bootup. > > For > > > now, I'd recommend just bundling everything into gems (via thor > > > merb:gem:install ...), gitignoring ./gems/gems, and running thor > > > merb:gem:redeploy when you deploy (which will rehydrate the gems on the > > > remote side, still bundled). > > > -- Yehuda > > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:50 AM, scottmotte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> Is there a reason they are separated like that though? From my view, > > >> it introduces unnecessary duplication - ableit it's not that big of a > > >> deal since we can just choose to use the yaml file only if we prefer > > >> and call it in init.rb. > > > >> But for future new users of merb wouldn't it be best to just have one > > >> file? (especially since bundling seems to be the generally agreed upon > > >> way to deploy your merb app) > > > >> On Nov 23, 12:51 am, "Michael Klishin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > 2008/11/23 Jacques Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> > > Hi. Does anyone have a good resource or explanation for the > > difference > > >> > > between dependencies.yml and dependencies.rb? > > > >> > One is a yaml file used by merb.thor for bundling, another is just a > > >> > file where people > > >> > may (or may not) put their dependencies definitions for Merb to load. > > > >> > You may move all the #dependency calls to init.rb or load some other > > >> > file from init.rb. > > >> > -- > > >> > MK > > > > -- > > > Yehuda Katz > > > Developer | Engine Yard > > > (ph) 718.877.1325 > > -- > Yehuda Katz > Developer | Engine Yard > (ph) 718.877.1325 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/merb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
