On Apr 22, 2008, at 13:51 PM, Luis Lavena wrote: > Anyway, after this brief introduction, I want to ask and share > something we (Gordon Thiesfeld and I) were discussing on rubyinstaller > development list [1]: merge rubygems generated scripts and stubs into > one and only file (gemname.bat).
Does this mean `gem install rake` would only produce a `rake.bat` instead of both `rake` and `rake.bat`? Or `gem install tinderbox` (which has two executables) would have a `tinderbox.bat` that could invoke either executables via a subcommand? (Would it be beneficial to add something like `gem execute rake` that would run the rake executable?) > Right now RubyGems generates the Windows stubs that call the extension > less files (which contains the actual ruby script). > > This is good for running gems from the command line, but fails when > using backticks or system calls from Ruby, since the look up method > used in Ruby prioritize extension less files over executable > (.bat/.cmd/.exe/.com) files. That's one of the reasons we are forced > to add '.bat' to every rake or system call that fires other commands > already installed by other gems. > > Ruby bundled scripts workaround this merging both stub (.bat) and > script into the same file. Ok, I think you mean the former. > Another workaround will be hack what currently Ruby does, but that > will require a lot of approval which I see will not came soon (or > ever). Whose approval? > Doing this right now breaks lot of tests, since the presumption of > having two separate scripts will be gone... but this solves a lot of > problems, also reduce the issues when providing patches for other > projects too, since we can disregard the '.bat' regexp at some places. > > What do you guys think? > > [1] http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubyinstaller-devel/2008-April/000292.html _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
