Bugs item #27109, was opened at 2009-09-16 11:44 You can respond by visiting: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=575&aid=27109&group_id=126
Category: None Group: None Status: Closed Resolution: Rejected Priority: 3 Submitted By: Adam Salter (aqsalter) Assigned to: Nobody (None) Summary: Should be able to specify gem source in gemspec file Initial Comment: Since there are now at least 3 different 'major' gem hosts - rubyforge, github, gemcutter - it would be nice if a gem dependency's source could be specified in the gemspec file. It might be really nice if _all_ the options supported by 'gem install' were supported but at least being able to specify a non-rubyforge source would be great. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Adam Salter (aqsalter) Date: 2009-09-17 13:36 Message: I understand the want to have gems work by default, but really think this is overcomplicating a simple issue. People are and will continue to want to publish gems to various gem providers. It's the way people are. This all started because I asked for somebody to publish a gem as a dependency and that gem got published to gemcutter. I was essentially forced to publish my gem to gemcutter so that I could use that dependency. I like the idea that other gem sources should be allowed to flourish. The (best) major ones will always win out... I don't see this gem apocalypse you envision. It is _not_ a bug (in my mind) that somebody didn't release their gem to rubyforge. No matter how easy or friendly it is. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: James Tucker (raggi) Date: 2009-09-16 20:47 Message: Ryan - lol, sorry :-( It's useful, as a minimal starting point, for me. My main gripe of hoe is the task names, which i know is totally minor, but anyway, that's another discussion for somewhere else... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Ryan Davis (zenspider) Date: 2009-09-16 19:38 Message: Don't fool yourself. That isn't even close to what Hoe is capable of. :P ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: James Tucker (raggi) Date: 2009-09-16 19:20 Message: Here is a rakefile that's largely as capable as hoe.rb, but self contained, and a single file. This would help with releasing to rubyforge, and also supports maintaining a .gemspec for github, making releasing on both systems trivial. http://github.com/raggi/subload/blob/master/Rakefile ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: James Tucker (raggi) Date: 2009-09-16 19:17 Message: Several things here: 1. Rubyforge is the authorative source for rubygems. 2. Gemcutter although functional is not finished, and the discussion of merging it with the rubyforge source is underway - but only when it's ready. 3. Gemcutter requires gems be authorised for name clobber 4. Github won't publish gems that have the same name as a rubyforge gem 5. Gem security policies could be used to solve the auth problem 6. Contrary to popular (uneducated) belief, it is remarkably easy to publish gems to rubyforge using the rubyforge gem. 7. Despite it's php roots, rubyforge is very useful. 8. Gem files are not tied to a source, and never should be, that's centralisation and coupling that will be utterly destructive in future. 9. Github gem hosting is likely to leave soon, according to chris. 10. If you find a gem that isn't on rubyforge, then I recommend you submit that as a bug report. In my opinion that's *very* bad release policy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Adam Salter (aqsalter) Date: 2009-09-16 19:07 Message: perhaps you're right... I do think that fully supporting other gem sources is a good idea. I regularly need a gem that isn't on rubyforge as a dependency. There is also the issue whereby a gem of the same name exists on two providers. I don't want my users to have their install break in strange ways because they got the wrong/different gem... It is a real issue. There are multiple gem providers and not all people are publishing to rubyforge as a default choice. Would you like me to raise it on the mailing list? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: James Tucker (raggi) Date: 2009-09-16 18:23 Message: Add the sources to your .gemrc and you're done. This is a really bad idea in the long run, as at least one of these services will disappear this year, then you'll have a lot of broken gems. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=575&aid=27109&group_id=126 _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
