Proposing a Ruby Packaging Standard
in [Ruby]
|
Prev: how to redirect to a url that is stored inside a variable
Next: Using variables defined in configuration files
From: Dmitry Borodaenko on 21 Apr 2010 05:51 On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Suraj Kurapati <sunaku(a)gmail.com> wrote: > My concern is about the Ruby code in bin/ and lib/ being able to > find the rest of the files that originally came in the package. Â If > this RPS would define that related-file-finding code, then I don't > need to reinvent it (or copy/paste) for all of my Ruby libraries. Isn't that precisely what Config::CONFIG['datadir'] is for? -- Dmitry Borodaenko
From: Christian Neukirchen on 21 Apr 2010 07:31 Luis Lavena <luislavena(a)gmail.com> writes: > 3) Files ending with .exe > > AFAIK: "Exe"cutables, not extensions or libraries Afaict do libraries have that extension on VMS. -- Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen(a)gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
From: Suraj Kurapati on 21 Apr 2010 12:11 Dmitry Borodaenko wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Suraj Kurapati <sunaku(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> My concern is about the Ruby code in bin/ and lib/ being able to >> find the rest of the files that originally came in the package. > > Isn't that precisely what Config::CONFIG['datadir'] is for? Yes, but that value does not reflect RubyGems style on my system: >> Config::CONFIG['datadir'] => "/usr/share" >> `gem env`.lines.grep(/install/i) => [" - INSTALLATION DIRECTORY: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.1\n"] It needs to reflect both styles to work correctly under either one. I am using RubyGems 1.3.6 with Ruby 1.9.1p378 on i686-linux. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Damian Janowski on 21 Apr 2010 13:07 On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > earlier this month I wrote up a draft for a specification on how to > structure Ruby projects. It started at http://gist.github.com/361451 > and there was lots of discussion there, which I now want to move to > ruby-talk to gain a larger audience. Under Tests, should there be a standard for running the entire test suite? Say, `rake`?
From: Luis Lavena on 21 Apr 2010 14:46
On Apr 21, 2:07 pm, Damian Janowski <damian.janow...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > > Under Tests, should there be a standard for running the entire test > suite? Say, `rake`? That would trigger other dependencies developers might have in their rake tasks (like coverage, documentation, mutation testing, etc.) I simple "ruby -Ilib test/test*.rb" should suffice, right? -- Luis Lavena |