On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luis Lavena wrote: > > PS: bikeshed? > > I'm getting really tired of people calling bikeshed on discussions just > because there's a difference of opinion not getting resolved. It is NOT > a bikeshed for us to want "jgem" changed back to "gem" since it directly > affects JRuby users and we never asked for it to happen. We've run and > shipped RubyGems with JRuby for two years, always with the 'gem' command. >
You aren't the only one that get tired of starting discussion on topics that end with things like "mine is better than yours"... and start a manhood competition... > The 'jgem' command name causes the following problems: > > - If people install RubyGems manually into JRuby, walkthroughs, > tutorials, and scripts that expect the 'gem' command to exist will fail > to work. > - If people update JRuby, they'll have an old 'gem' command (the one we > ship) alongside the newer 'jgem' command (installed by RubyGems). > On lot of references I see 'jruby -S gem' or 'jruby -S rake' ... none of them explicitly indicates "gem" rake or any other script. Why? because most of the time gem, rake and the wrappers stubs clash with MRI ruby installation (take in consideration FHS/*nix installation, where files got installed In /usr/bin or things like that, not Windows). I personally have no trouble with JRuby implementation of gem being called gem, jgem or awesome_gem, what will really annoys me is start getting huge amount of support tickets and mails about NetBeans bundled jRuby interfering with MRI ruby installation, and blaming mongrel, one-click installer or any other thing I do. I just said bikeshed since we keep discussing about it, but we don't get to something that provide real value (37 mails can indicate that). > It should be changed back to 'gem' and if there are discussions to be > had about how to avoid collisions or about how to share gem stores then > those discussions should include the implementers, rather than being > done in a vacuum and forced upon them. > Until out patches got accepted in RubyGems, we used to replace the generated stub scripts gem creates with our own set of batch files. I'll better suggest leave rubygem executable as 'gem', and state it clearly when it runs, the ruby and rubygems version and platform implementation. > As a representative of the JRuby implementers, *I do not want it to be > 'jgem'*. Please change it back to 'gem' for JRuby installs. > /me talking as the dumb and stubborn One-Click Installer maintainer. -- Luis Lavena Multimedia systems - Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. Douglas Adams _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
