See below. -- Evan Phoenix // e...@fallingsnow.net
On Monday, June 6, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Trans wrote: > I'm wondering if a gems `require_path` field is really necessary. To > what extent is require_paths used by others? I know I use it one of my > projects, and for a long time I thought I could not do without it, but > now I think I see a reasonable alternative. > > So is it possible... Could we eliminate this field and standardize on > the convention of a project's 'lib/' directory? Doing so would > trivialize the relationship between $LOAD_PATH and the location of > gems and grant us the usual benefits of convention over > configuration. No, there are gems that specify multiple values for this for extensions and embedded libraries. There is no reason to lose configurability of this. That being said, require_paths defaults to ["lib"] so there is already the expected convention baked in. > > Does anyone have a scenario necessitates configurable require_paths? > Or at least makes it extremely awkward to do without it? > _______________________________________________ > Rubygems-developers mailing list > http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems > Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org (mailto:Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org) > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
