Marcus Rueckert wrote: > On 2007-10-24 20:15:24 -0700, Eric Hodel wrote: >> On Oct 24, 2007, at 20:08 , Brian Sammon wrote: >>>>> That seems like an odd switch name then. I vote for '--ask- >>>>> dependencies' >>>>> instead. I would tuit '--ignore-dependencies' to mean 'just install >>>>> the >>>>> damn thing, don't try to grab the dependencies at all'. >>>> It means the latter. It will never ask before installing >>>> dependencies anymore. >>> Will the --ignore-dependencies option at least tell you what >>> dependencies you >>> have just ignored? >> `gem dep` will tell you that. >> >>> I would like to see the old behavior kept around as an option, or >>> as an >>> alternative/additional, a mode for it to behave like rpm/dpkg, and >>> just fail >>> verbosely if you don't have the dependencies already. >> It will fail upon require. >> >>> Would patches for any of this kind of stuff be accepted? (as non- >>> defaulted >>> options, of course) > > a package managing tool should never produce an inconsistent state. and > missing dependencies are an inconsistent state. other package managers > require a --force to break the system. > > i would call the flag --dependencies=[ask|ignore]. the --ignore-dependencies > could be dropped.
The CPAN shell (Perl) does ask|ignore|follow. > another improvement in that area would that it should list all > dependencies at once and ask "do you want to install those 10 other gems > to satisfy the dependencies?" that way you wouldnt have to say "y" 10 > times as it was in the past. maybe if you move to a single question for > all dependencies, it would be ok to revert to the old behavior of asking > if a gem needs more gems. That would be the 'follow' option above. If such a thing doesn't already exist, I'll hack on it this weekend and see what I can come up with. Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
