What's the new hotness for packaging gems?

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Tony Arcieri, Nov 28, 2009.

  1. Tony Arcieri

    Tony Arcieri Guest

    [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    I've used ad hoc stuff for packaging most of my gems. Long ago there was
    hoe... is that still relevant?

    In this age of Gemcutter, what should I be using to generate my
    gemspecs/build my gems/etc?

    --
    Tony Arcieri
    Medioh/Nagravision
     
    Tony Arcieri, Nov 28, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony Arcieri

    Luis Lavena Guest

    On Nov 28, 7:25 pm, Tony Arcieri <> wrote:
    > [Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]
    >
    > I've used ad hoc stuff for packaging most of my gems.  Long ago there was
    > hoe... is that still relevant?
    >
    > In this age of Gemcutter, what should I be using to generate my
    > gemspecs/build my gems/etc?
    >


    Bones, Jeweler and soon and updated version of Hoe for gemcutter's
    push command instead of RubyForge usage.
    (in no particular or preferred order)

    --
    Luis Lavena
     
    Luis Lavena, Nov 28, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tony Arcieri

    Roger Pack Guest

    > In this age of Gemcutter, what should I be using to generate my
    > gemspecs/build my gems/etc?


    jeweler is what I'm using these days.

    -r
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Roger Pack, Nov 29, 2009
    #3
  4. On Nov 28, 2009, at 10:42 PM, Roger Pack wrote:

    >> In this age of Gemcutter, what should I be using to generate my
    >> gemspecs/build my gems/etc?

    >=20
    > jeweler is what I'm using these days.


    I've seen several uses of it now and it always strikes me that it's just =
    about the same size as a traditional gem specification. Which problem =
    were we trying to solve with all of these fancy packagers again? :)

    I'm mostly kidding here. Everyone should use whatever they like, of =
    course.

    James Edward Gray II=
     
    James Edward Gray II, Nov 29, 2009
    #4
  5. On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM, James Edward Gray II
    <> wrote:
    > On Nov 28, 2009, at 10:42 PM, Roger Pack wrote:
    >
    >>> In this age of Gemcutter, what should I be using to generate my
    >>> gemspecs/build my gems/etc?

    >>
    >> jeweler is what I'm using these days.

    >
    > I've seen several uses of it now and it always strikes me that it's just =

    about the same size as a traditional gem specification. =A0Which problem we=
    re we trying to solve with all of these fancy packagers again? =A0:)
    >
    > I'm mostly kidding here. =A0Everyone should use whatever they like, of co=

    urse.

    All kidding aside, the main advantage of using any of these tools is
    getting some rake tasks to help with the workflow of maintaining and
    publishing gems.

    I've been using Dr. Nic's newgem which is based on hoe, and adds
    things like maintaining a rubyforge web site. I'm considering
    switching to using jeweler though.

    --=20
    Rick DeNatale

    Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
    Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
    WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
    LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale
     
    Rick DeNatale, Nov 29, 2009
    #5
  6. Tony Arcieri

    Matt H Guest

    On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:14 PM, James Edward Gray II
    <> wrote:
    > On Nov 28, 2009, at 10:42 PM, Roger Pack wrote:
    >
    >>> In this age of Gemcutter, what should I be using to generate my
    >>> gemspecs/build my gems/etc?

    >>
    >> jeweler is what I'm using these days.

    >
    > I've seen several uses of it now and it always strikes me that it's just =

    about the same size as a traditional gem specification. =A0Which problem we=
    re we trying to solve with all of these fancy packagers again? =A0:)
    >


    Jeweler is pretty awesome because in addition to providing rake tasks like:

    rake version:bump
    rake gemcutter:release

    It will also automatically create your repository on github if you're into =
    that.

    I haven't tried the others though.

    --=20
    Find me - http://www.smajn.net/social
     
    Matt H, Nov 29, 2009
    #6
  7. On Saturday 28 November 2009 11:14:10 pm James Edward Gray II wrote:
    > On Nov 28, 2009, at 10:42 PM, Roger Pack wrote:
    > >> In this age of Gemcutter, what should I be using to generate my
    > >> gemspecs/build my gems/etc?

    > >
    > > jeweler is what I'm using these days.

    >
    > I've seen several uses of it now and it always strikes me that it's just
    > about the same size as a traditional gem specification. Which problem
    > were we trying to solve with all of these fancy packagers again? :)


    Mostly kidding, too, but I have to agree -- the only gems I've actually built
    lately have been small enough that I don't see a real advantage to doing it
    programmatically. The last time I did, the only real point I saw was getting a
    list of files -- only needed when I was letting Github build gems, and
    directory globbing was not allowed in those gempsecs.
     
    David Masover, Nov 29, 2009
    #7
  8. Tony Arcieri

    Ryan Davis Guest

    On Nov 28, 2009, at 14:25 , Tony Arcieri wrote:

    > I've used ad hoc stuff for packaging most of my gems. Long ago there =

    was
    > hoe... is that still relevant?
    >=20
    > In this age of Gemcutter, what should I be using to generate my
    > gemspecs/build my gems/etc?


    Hoe is still very relevant and is what pretty much all of seattle.rb =
    uses. It has a great plugin system that makes it very easy to enable =
    extra features. Raggi wrote a gemcutter plugin that'll be folded in and =
    default on the next release.
     
    Ryan Davis, Nov 29, 2009
    #8
  9. Tony Arcieri

    Roger Pack Guest


    >> jeweler is what I'm using these days.

    >
    > I've seen several uses of it now and it always strikes me that it's just
    > about the same size as a traditional gem specification. Which problem
    > were we trying to solve with all of these fancy packagers again? :)
    >
    > I'm mostly kidding here. Everyone should use whatever they like, of
    > course.


    Yeah now that we no longer publish through github it's not as much of a
    necessity. It does still give you the

    s.add_development_dependency 'x'

    it will break that up into the appropriate dependency based on rubygems
    version (i.e. it gives you the backwards compatible checks for free),
    but beyond that you could probably just stick it in a gemspec anyway.

    -r
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Roger Pack, Nov 30, 2009
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tomás

    Gems -- #include <gems.hpp>

    Tomás, Mar 4, 2006, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    447
    Tomás
    Mar 5, 2006
  2. Lloyd Zusman
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    203
    Lloyd Zusman
    Jun 21, 2005
  3. Dany Cayouette

    'private' gems/gems hierarchy

    Dany Cayouette, Nov 25, 2005, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    174
    Jim Weirich
    Nov 25, 2005
  4. Thaddeus L Olczyk

    Problem getting gems/listing gems. EINVAL

    Thaddeus L Olczyk, Aug 15, 2006, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    203
    Thaddeus L Olczyk
    Aug 15, 2006
  5. R.. Kumar

    Packaging common code with gems

    R.. Kumar, Jun 6, 2010, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    90
    R.. Kumar
    Jun 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page