nore...@rubyforge.org wrote: > Feature Requests item #27318, was opened at 2009-10-19 11:49 > You can respond by visiting: > http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=578&aid=27318&group_id=126 > > Category: local package management > Group: None > Status: Open > Resolution: None > Priority: 3 > Submitted By: ara howard (ahoward) > Assigned to: Nobody (None) > Summary: weight spec.name when searching gem lib dirs for 'path' > > Initial Comment: > gems has a *serious* issue in that someone structuring there gem like > > a_gem-1.2.3/lib/rails.rb > > will have there rails.rb loaded *before* the actual rails.rb when one does a > > require 'rails' > > this because the search through gem libdirs is sorted alpha/version wise with > no concept of the semantics of the require statement. in fact, we know that > users of rubygems mean to require the gem *named* rails when issuing the > above. no gem user issues a normal require to pick up some random file from > inside and arbitrary gem libdir. as such it makes sense to *prefer* file > matches which exactly match the spec.name when searching. here is a patch, > all tests that passed before (there was one failing) continue to pass with > this patch:
I don't think this is a problem rubygems necessarily needs to solve. As a library writer, why are you including a lib/rails.rb in your gem? Why not "lib/a_gem/rails.rb"? I wouldn't use a gem where the gem author didn't realize the implications of included a top-level rb file that conflicted with other gems. It seems like bad form. > --- lib/rubygems/gem_path_searcher.rb.org 2009-10-19 11:37:13.000000000 > -0600 > +++ lib/rubygems/gem_path_searcher.rb 2009-10-19 11:46:26.000000000 -0600 > @@ -30,8 +30,11 @@ > # Return the _gemspec_ of the gem where it was found. If no match > # is found, return nil. > # > - # The gems are searched in alphabetical order, and in reverse > - # version order. > + # The gems are searched in alphabetical order, and in reverse version > order. > + # If a path is found in more than one gem the gem with a spec.name == path > + # is preferred over others - in otherwords main-3.0.3/lib/main.rb would be > + # preferred over geonames-1.2.3/lib/main.rb if one issued a 'require > "main"' > + # - assuming main had spec.name=='main'. > # > # For example: > # > @@ -46,8 +49,18 @@ > # only that there is a match. > > def find(path) > - @gemspecs.find do |spec| matching_file? spec, path end > + first_named = first = nil > + @gemspecs.select do |spec| > + if(matching_file?(spec, path)) > + name = File.basename(path).sub(%r/\..*$/,'') > + first ||= spec > + first_named ||= spec if(spec.name == name) > + end > + break if(first_named and first) > end > + first_named or first > + end > + > > ## > # Works like #find, but finds all gemspecs matching +path+. A patch with no tests? o_O -- Aaron Patterson http://tenderlovemaking.com/ _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
