On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 10:11:35AM -0400, Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 3/23/07, TRANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/23/07, Eric Hodel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Why not release it as a separate gem, let it develop for a while, and > > > if people use it, it can be included in RubyGems at a future date? > > > > Bundling with RubyGems is going to reduce opportunities for rapid > > > improvement. > > Okay. Well I can do that. It's pretty drop-dead simple though. Do you > > have any reason to suspect it's a bad idea? > > Yeah; it's shelling out for tar. Use Archive::Tar::Minitar instead and > then you only depend on RubyGems and can script that appropriately > (see Patrick's questions recently on automating Gems).
If you don't want an extra dependency, you can as well use rubygems/package.rb; it's the code Archive::Tar::Minitar was derived from. AFAIK it has barely changed since it was written in 2004 (only signed packages and a workaround for a win32+zlib issue come to mind, but those didn't affect the basic tar read/write functionality), so if you use it your code is nearly guaranteed to work with all RubyGems setups out there. -- Mauricio Fernandez - http://eigenclass.org - singular Ruby ** Latest postings ** Rich exception hierarchies, multiple inheritance in Ruby http://eigenclass.org/hiki/exception-hierarchies Towards compatibility with Ruby 1.9: Rails, Rake, RubyGems... http://eigenclass.org/hiki/porting-rails-to-ruby-1.9 _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
