Re: rb-rubygems does not work

On Aug 24, 2006, at 9.53, Paul Guyot wrote:
> Le 24 août 06 à 16:16, [email protected] a écrit :
>> the end goal is to install rails, no? even if it isn't, i would
>> recommend james duncan davidson's "Sandboxing Rails with Darwin  
>> Ports"
>> article:
>> 	<http://duncandavidson.com/essay/2006/04/portsandbox>
>
> You shouldn't do this.
>
> Instead, do:
> sudo port install rb-rails

I second Jean-Pierre's response on this one. Installing
rails, and most other gems for that matter, through
DarwinPorts is plain stupid. What's the point in having
a RubyGems port then?

[...]
> I disagree. We should have a macport for every ruby gem and you  
> should use them.
> For two reasons:
> #1 using gem will pollute /opt/local
> #2 using MacPorts allow you to safely remove gems.
>
> Besides, as I explained recently here, it's extremely simple to  
> build a portfile for a gem with the recent addition of the gem  
> option for the ruby PortGroup.

And using ``gem'' is even simpler.
By the way, do you know how many gems there are?

And how would versioning be handled? I have rails
version 1.1.6, 1.1.4, 1.1.3, 1.1.2, 1.0.0 installed
side by side right now through gems, which means I
can run rails apps that bind to any of these versions,
explicitly. Can DP handle that? Without cluttering
the ports tree with ports like rb-rails-1.1.6,
rb-rails-1.1.5, etc?

I'd prefer if the gems provided by DP were held at an
absolute minimum, the only exception being gems that
could not possibly be installed on OS X without some
serious hacking. I suppose those aren't exactly plentiful.

Regards,
Malte