On 3/23/07, Mauricio Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 10:11:35AM -0400, Austin Ziegler wrote: > > On 3/23/07, TRANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 3/23/07, Eric Hodel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Why not release it as a separate gem, let it develop for a while, and > > > > if people use it, it can be included in RubyGems at a future date? > > > > > > Bundling with RubyGems is going to reduce opportunities for rapid > > > > improvement. > > > Okay. Well I can do that. It's pretty drop-dead simple though. Do you > > > have any reason to suspect it's a bad idea? > > > > Yeah; it's shelling out for tar. Use Archive::Tar::Minitar instead and > > then you only depend on RubyGems and can script that appropriately > > (see Patrick's questions recently on automating Gems). > > If you don't want an extra dependency, you can as well use > rubygems/package.rb; it's the code Archive::Tar::Minitar was derived from. > AFAIK it has barely changed since it was written in 2004 (only signed packages > and a workaround for a win32+zlib issue come to mind, but those didn't affect > the basic tar read/write functionality), so if you use it your code is nearly > guaranteed to work with all RubyGems setups out there.
Cool I'll do that. Thanks. T. _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
