Bugs item #25208, was opened at 2009-04-06 18:02 You can respond by visiting: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=575&aid=25208&group_id=126
Category: other Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 3 Submitted By: Jeremy Lawler (jlawler) Assigned to: Nobody (None) Summary: Files in the bin directory shouldn't be put in LOAD_PATH Initial Comment: If a file is intended to be loaded by a running ruby process (not exec'd), it shouldn't be in bin. You've created a system that uses a standard unix naming scheme that you don't implement. Outside of rubygems, no one add bin directories to the load/include paths. Calling it bin would be like if python had all their files end in ".rb" >From #rubygems on 2009-04-06: (04:15:15 PM) drbrain: the executable stubs should probably be updated to use Gem.bin_path, now that it exists (04:16:03 PM) drbrain: until all the bin stubs are migrated on a system, though, it has to work this way for backwards compatibility (More context, if you'd like) (01:46:34 PM) jlawler: This is what happened to me: someone puts extensions on all their scripts. I had a gem called Foo. There was a foo.rb in the lib directory that was the app. But there was driver called foo.rb (01:47:15 PM) jlawler: because there was a foo.rb in the bin and the lib directory, and because the bin directory has higher priority (?!), I got exceedingly unexpected results. (04:01:41 PM) drbrain: jlawler: you should file a bug with whoever added .rb to those files (04:04:07 PM) jlawler: drbrain: Agreed. But I still don't understand wtf the point of the bin directory is. If it gets put in LOAD_PATH, it's not a bin directory. I'm trying to understand if there's a reason you guys don't consider that a bug... (04:04:39 PM) drbrain: jlawler: how would "load 'rake'" work otherwise? (04:08:38 PM) drbrain: it's not a bug because this is how load works (04:10:17 PM) drbrain: if the exact file name is not on the load path it can't be loaded (04:10:25 PM) jlawler: drbrain: as it exists, you're right, it wouldn't. If a file is intended to be loaded by a running ruby process (not exec'd), it shouldn't be in bin. The "right" way to do that IMO is to have a "rake_runner.rb" (or something like that) that you can load, which would live in the lib directory. Hell, they can even do it exactly how they do it now, just move the rake file to the lib directory. (04:12:16 PM) jlawler: You've created a system that uses a standard unix naming scheme that you don't implement. Outside of rubygems, no one add bin directories to the load/include paths. Calling it bin would be like if python had all their files end in ".rb" (04:14:14 PM) drbrain: jlawler: like I said before, it's done this way for historical reasons, largely (04:15:15 PM) drbrain: the executable stubs should probably be updated to use Gem.bin_path, now that it exists (04:16:03 PM) drbrain: until all the bin stubs are migrated on a system, though, it has to work this way for backwards compatibility (04:16:18 PM) jlawler: drbrain: I do understand that. God knows I've maintained things I didn't like for historical reasons. I'd like there to be a migration away from that, not that an alternative does exist. I'm not asking you to deprecate it tomorrow, but I think it's a reasonable thing to try to deprecate. (04:16:59 PM) jlawler: I absolutely refuse to believe I'm the only person who has had to track down the strange behavior caused by the fact that the same file name existed in the bin and lib directories. (04:17:41 PM) drbrain: you're probably not (04:34:58 PM) imperator2: jlawler, yes, please file a bug ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=575&aid=25208&group_id=126 _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
