<cracks up> I love that movie.
James Edward Gray II
···
On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:25 PM, Bil Kleb wrote:
So far, our IT Security folks
haven't rained down upon me like the CDA in Monsters Inc.
You're right (both that the report was wrong and that it's probably an
edge case). I personally think we can live with it for now, but it
might be worth rethinking our approach at some point. Just for the
record, we didn't think using Config::CONFIG was particularly clever
Chad
···
On 1/9/07, Kashia Buch <kashia.buch@web.de> wrote:
Hi,
>> Reason: Tattle uses Config::CONFIG, which is where the ruby was
>> compiled in, not what it is running on.
>
> Its still darwin 8, so gems for your version of ruby should work ok with
> gems compiled for any other darwin 8 version. If you built for darwin 8
> but your uname -a now reported AIX that would be cause for alarm.of course it works, how would you live without ruby.
My point was merely that I was spreading false information, and others
might
too.
Hoe hasn't finished evolving yet. At present a new Hoe feature can be released less than ten minutes from commit time. With RubyGems that takes a month (so far).
Another way to look at it is:
Ten releases of Hoe in three months.
One release of RubyGems in eighteen months.
···
On Jan 9, 2007, at 09:47, Chad Fowler wrote:
On 1/9/07, Bil Kleb <Bil.Kleb@nasa.gov> wrote:
Pit Capitain wrote:
Chad, why does tattle depend on the hoe and rubyforge gems?
Or alternatively, why isn't hoe and rubyforge /in/ rubygems?
I think that's a fair question.
I'm not answering it, but it's a good question.
Seriously, worth a chat on rubygems-developers, I think.
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!
rake test
PS: Nobody complains about hoe depending on rake which is 2.5 times larger.
···
On Jan 9, 2007, at 09:31, Ben Bleything wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Ryan Davis wrote:
Chad, why does tattle depend on the hoe and rubyforge gems?
Uh... because hoe is the single most awesome thing for ruby project
development in the last 6 years? It is used in 5% of all rubygems.
Get over it.I think the question is "why is this neat tool useful only to the gem's
developer required to install the gem on end-user systems?"So... why is that?
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!
% du -sk */*hoe*
12 cache/hoe-1.1.7.gem
104 doc/hoe-1.1.7
40 gems/hoe-1.1.7
4 specifications/hoe-1.1.7.gemspec
In other words, who cares?!?
It sounds like you're complaining simply because it offends your sensibilities. If you have a problem with the way gems does dependencies, then file a bug with rubygems and/or offer them a well tested patch. Otherwise, drop it as it doesn't matter one bit.
···
On Jan 9, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Ben Bleything wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Ryan Davis wrote:
Chad, why does tattle depend on the hoe and rubyforge gems?
Uh... because hoe is the single most awesome thing for ruby project
development in the last 6 years? It is used in 5% of all rubygems.
Get over it.I think the question is "why is this neat tool useful only to the gem's
developer required to install the gem on end-user systems?"
Pit Capitain wrote:
Ryan Davis schrieb:
... Without hoe as a dependency, the software packaged in a hoe-based
gem doesn't work 100%. But... you're a smart guy. You knew that.Seems I'm not. I'm still not knowing it.
He was applying that cleverist of humor devices known as sarcasm. He was insulting you. See, by typing "you're a smart guy" after typing an explanation he considered to be unnecessary, that's his was of saying that you're not a smart guy. Oh, Ryan, you scoundrel!
Devin
Oops, six months. I can't do math.
···
On Jan 9, 2007, at 10:14, Eric Hodel wrote:
Ten releases of Hoe in three months.
One release of RubyGems in eighteen months.
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!
>I think the question is "why is this neat tool useful only to the
>gem's
>developer required to install the gem on end-user systems?"
>
>So... why is that?rake test
Makes sense, didn't think about that. Still, though, gem install -t
does the same thing and doesn't require dependencies.
PS: Nobody complains about hoe depending on rake which is 2.5 times
larger.
Rake is useful for more than just gem deployment.
I shouldn't need to install the rubyforge gem to install someone else's
library, but if they packaged it with hoe, I'm forced to. This doesn't
make sense.
I'm all for both of them being folded into gem, though. If they were
already there, nobody would have anything to complain about 
Ben
···
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Eric Hodel wrote:
Ryan Davis wrote:
% du -sk */*hoe*
12 cache/hoe-1.1.7.gem
104 doc/hoe-1.1.7
40 gems/hoe-1.1.7
4 specifications/hoe-1.1.7.gemspecIn other words, who cares?!?
It sounds like you're complaining simply because it offends your sensibilities. If you have a problem with the way gems does dependencies, then file a bug with rubygems and/or offer them a well tested patch. Otherwise, drop it as it doesn't matter one bit.
Maybe instead of complaining for a paragraph about this guy's behavior, you could answer his question (in case you've forgotten: "Why?"), as Eric demonstrated.
<snip useless file size junk>
In other words, who cares?!?
At least one other person than me, apparently, since I didn't ask this
question originally.
It sounds like you're complaining simply because it offends your
sensibilities. If you have a problem with the way gems does
dependencies, then file a bug with rubygems and/or offer them a well
tested patch. Otherwise, drop it as it doesn't matter one bit.
I'm not really complaining, just asking. And nobody has answered my
question yet.
It's not a problem with the way gem handles dependencies. It's a
problem with hoe injecting itself as a dependency on any gem it creates.
And it's not really a problem, I just want to know why. You're acting
like I'm insulting your sister, but I'm really just asking a question.
Ben
···
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Ryan Davis wrote:
Pit Capitain wrote:
Ryan Davis schrieb:
... Without hoe as a dependency, the software packaged in a hoe-based
gem doesn't work 100%. But... you're a smart guy. You knew that.Seems I'm not. I'm still not knowing it.
He was applying that cleverist of humor devices known as sarcasm. He was insulting you. See, by typing "you're a smart guy" after typing an explanation he considered to be unnecessary, that's his was of saying that you're not a smart guy. Oh, Ryan, you scoundrel!
He knew all the tricks. Dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody,
litotes and... satire. He was vicious!
SCNR,
Bill
···
From: "Devin Mullins" <twifkak@comcast.net>
Actually, he was insulting me, apparently for daring to have a different
opinion than he. I'm hurt, truly.
Ben
···
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Devin Mullins wrote:
Pit Capitain wrote:
>Seems I'm not. I'm still not knowing it.He was applying that cleverist of humor devices known as sarcasm. He was
insulting you. See, by typing "you're a smart guy" after typing an
explanation he considered to be unnecessary, that's his was of saying
that you're not a smart guy. Oh, Ryan, you scoundrel!
I'm pretty much going to ignore the rest of this bikeshed DIALOG, but I thought I should respond to this.
For the record:
"On Jan 9, 2007, at 11:33 PM, Ben Bleything wrote:"
was the attribution in my email with the "you're a smart guy" comment. I know, like, and respect Ben and can say "you're a smart guy" about/to him without sarcasm. I couldn't possibly say that about Pit Capitain (since I don't know him).
You might want to actually read the email before you go making assumptions about me, my intentions, or my thought process.
···
On Jan 10, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Devin Mullins wrote:
Pit Capitain wrote:
Ryan Davis schrieb:
... Without hoe as a dependency, the software packaged in a hoe-based
gem doesn't work 100%. But... you're a smart guy. You knew that.Seems I'm not. I'm still not knowing it.
He was applying that cleverist of humor devices known as sarcasm. He was insulting you. See, by typing "you're a smart guy" after typing an explanation he considered to be unnecessary, that's his was of saying that you're not a smart guy. Oh, Ryan, you scoundrel!
I think the question is "why is this neat tool useful only to the
gem's
developer required to install the gem on end-user systems?"So... why is that?
rake test
Makes sense, didn't think about that. Still, though, gem install -t
does the same thing and doesn't require dependencies.
This is not guaranteed to work. Currently gems is very lax in its installation and doesn't rollback when you cancel on a dependency. In the future it may not.
Rake is useful for more than just gem deployment.
Only if you are also developing. If you're just using libraries, it is useless.
I shouldn't need to install the rubyforge gem to install someone else's
library, but if they packaged it with hoe, I'm forced to. This doesn't
make sense.
Same for rake, but nobody complains.
···
On Jan 9, 2007, at 10:42, Ben Bleything wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Eric Hodel wrote:
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!
I found this strange, too. I love hoe, I'm just puzzled as to why
it's required by the gems it creates.
Not a dealbreaker; just a curiousity.
--Jeremy
···
On 1/9/07, Ben Bleything <ben@bleything.net> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Ryan Davis wrote:
<snip useless file size junk>
> In other words, who cares?!?
At least one other person than me, apparently, since I didn't ask this
question originally.> It sounds like you're complaining simply because it offends your
> sensibilities. If you have a problem with the way gems does
> dependencies, then file a bug with rubygems and/or offer them a well
> tested patch. Otherwise, drop it as it doesn't matter one bit.I'm not really complaining, just asking. And nobody has answered my
question yet.It's not a problem with the way gem handles dependencies. It's a
problem with hoe injecting itself as a dependency on any gem it creates.
And it's not really a problem, I just want to know why. You're acting
like I'm insulting your sister, but I'm really just asking a question.Ben
--
My free Ruby e-book:
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/book/
My blogs:
No, hoe is acting absolutely properly when it injects itself into the dependency list. Any gem should FULLY list all of its dependencies it requires to work (defined broadly by rubygems but could be summarized as "something mentioned by 'require'"). That would include rake if you have a Rakefile. Since a Rakefile is just software (a specification for automated behavior), it too can have dependencies. Since hoe projects are just rakefiles that use hoe, it has a dependency on hoe... Without hoe as a dependency, the software packaged in a hoe-based gem doesn't work 100%. But... you're a smart guy. You knew that.
···
On Jan 9, 2007, at 11:33 PM, Ben Bleything wrote:
It's not a problem with the way gem handles dependencies. It's a
problem with hoe injecting itself as a dependency on any gem it creates.
And it's not really a problem, I just want to know why.
>Makes sense, didn't think about that. Still, though, gem install -t
>does the same thing and doesn't require dependencies.This is not guaranteed to work. Currently gems is very lax in its
installation and doesn't rollback when you cancel on a dependency. In
the future it may not.
Interesting, didn't know that. It's always worked where I've used it.
>Rake is useful for more than just gem deployment.
Only if you are also developing. If you're just using libraries, it
is useless.
Not true. I need rake to work with Rails, even though I'm not doing any
development on the Rails libraries. If it were packaged with Hoe, I'd
need to install hoe, but I'd never actually use the Hoe libraries again.
>I shouldn't need to install the rubyforge gem to install someone
>else's library, but if they packaged it with hoe, I'm forced to.
>This doesn't make sense.Same for rake, but nobody complains.
Not true at all:
commercial ~/projects/personal/plist > rake gem
(in /Users/bbleything/projects/personal/plist)
mkdir -p pkg
Successfully built RubyGem
Name: plist
Version: 3.0.0
File: plist-3.0.0.gem
mv plist-3.0.0.gem pkg/plist-3.0.0.gem
commercial ~/projects/personal/plist > sudo gem uninstall rake
You have requested to uninstall the gem:
rake-0.7.1
hoe-1.1.6 depends on [rake (> 0.0.0)]
gem_plugin-0.2.1 depends on [rake (>= 0.7)]
rails-1.1.6 depends on [rake (>= 0.7.1)]
If you remove this gems, one or more dependencies will not be met.
Continue with Uninstall? [Yn] y
Successfully uninstalled rake version 0.7.1
Remove executables and scripts for
'rake' in addition to the gem? [Yn] y
Removing rake
commercial ~...personal/plist/pkg > cd pkg
commercial ~...personal/plist/pkg > ls
plist-3.0.0.gem
commercial ~...personal/plist/pkg > sudo gem install plist-3.0.0.gem
Successfully installed plist, version 3.0.0
Installing ri documentation for plist-3.0.0...
Installing RDoc documentation for plist-3.0.0...
Ben
···
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Eric Hodel wrote:
Ryan Davis wrote:
No, hoe is acting absolutely properly when it injects itself into the
dependency list. Any gem should FULLY list all of its dependencies it
requires to work (defined broadly by rubygems but could be summarized
as "something mentioned by 'require'").
There is a difference of opinion here. Ryan thinks dependencies should
include meta-dependencies. Many people, though, do not. The question has
come up before:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=5993&group_id=1513&atid=5921
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=7118&group_id=1513&atid=5922
I agree with those who want to avoid installing meta-dependencies on
production servers. So, here is Echoe, a Hoe 1.1.6 fork.
sudo gem install echoe
http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=2835
To use Echoe properly in a Rakefile, load it conditionally, like so:
require 'rubygems'
require 'rake'
begin
require 'echoe'
# all your regular Echoe config
rescue LoadError => boom
puts "You are missing a dependency required for meta-operations on
this gem."
puts "#{boom.to_s.capitalize}."
desc 'No effect.'
task :default; end
# if you still want tests when Echoe is not present
desc 'Run the test suite.'
task :test do
system "ruby -Ibin:lib:test some_tests_test.rb" # or whatever
end
end
Personally, I hate Echoe. There is no reason to fork. But I think that
there is a need here, and if the Hoe developers refuse to acknowledge
it, we have no choice.
Evan Weaver
PS. Ryan, I submitted a patch against Rubyforge 0.4.0 for some stuff.
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=7727&group_id=1024&atid=4027
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
I don't agree with that.
FasterCSV, for example, has a Rakefile. It makes my life as a developer easier. I can run tests easier, create releases easier, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with running FasterCSV. Rake is not needed for that, so I think adding it as a dependency is wrong.
If you want to play with FasterCSV's source, you have two options. First, you can make sure rake is installed and use all the easy shortcuts I do. Or, you can do things the slightly longer way. I even document this. Here's an excerpt from the FasterCSV documentation:
== Running the Tests
If you would like to run FasterCSV's test suite on your system before installing and you have Rake installed, just issue the following command from the root of the project directory:
$ rake
If you do not have rake, use the following command instead:
$ ruby -I lib:test test/ts_all.rb
···
On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:52 AM, Ryan Davis wrote:
Any gem should FULLY list all of its dependencies it requires to work (defined broadly by rubygems but could be summarized as "something mentioned by 'require'"). That would include rake if you have a Rakefile.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Remember, rake and hoe just automate some commands that can always be issued manually.
Thinking about it another way, how many precompiled extensions, for Windows let's say, include a Makefile? What the heck do you need that for and how likely is make to be installed?
James Edward Gray II
I didn't used to. Now, as I get back into Ruby development, I will be
ensuring that the Rakefiles that I use to deploy software are also
included with my gems because of idempotency. Mauricio convinced me of
the value of that.
What we *need* to resolve this is recommended dependencies; currently,
RubyGems dependencies are mandatory if present. Hoe should be a
recommended, but not mandatory, dependency.
-austin
···
On 1/10/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:52 AM, Ryan Davis wrote:
> Any gem should FULLY list all of its dependencies it requires to
> work (defined broadly by rubygems but could be summarized as
> "something mentioned by 'require'"). That would include rake if you
> have a Rakefile.
I don't agree with that.
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
* austin@halostatue.ca * You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. // halo • statue
* austin@zieglers.ca