On Apr 19, 2008, at 07:22 AM, Donavan Pantke wrote: > On Friday 18 April 2008 04:56:44 pm Eric Hodel wrote: >> I'm not coming up with a good solution that fails in a sensible way. >> Your usecase is unique in this respect, and I think RubyGems simply >> fails it. :) > > Well, although this usecase is unique for now, with interpreters > that handle > memory better, and more frameworks like passenger come along, it may > not that > way for long. > > That being said, what scenarios are you thinking of that would make > sensible > failing hard? My initial plan is to simply make it such that the > activation > code skips dependencies specified as install_only. > DependencyInstaller will > continue as normal. Am I missing something here?
Adding a feature (dependency types) to fix this would be sensible. I can't figure out how to do it without doing something like that. _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
