wxruby users - Aug 2006 - Should we require ''rubygems'' in our samples?

Twice now, I have had some frustration trying to get my gem path
recognized without having to manually specify -rubygems on the command
line. It''s under-documented in Ubuntu[1].

I''m thinking that we should definitely mention this issue in the
README.
Shouldn''t we also require ''rubygems'' in all our
samples, to make it as
easy as possible for folks to play around with wxruby? If so, I can do
it at the same time I insert copyright/license notices.

My assumption at this point is that the primary distribution format will
be as a gem. And also that basically every ruby system these days will
(or should) have rubygems installed. Does that sound right?

The upcoming alpha release will consist of:
 - source tarball
 - binary gems for MSWin, OS X, and Linux

Right?

Kevin

[1] The best place to configure RUBYOPT=-rubygems is /etc/environment
because other locations are only used for interactive shells, or are NOT
used for interactive shells. But /etc/environment is only read at user
login, so after you change it there is no effect until you log out. I
was only able to piece that together by reading several forum threads.

Kevin Smith wrote:
> Twice now, I have had some frustration trying to get my gem path
> recognized without having to manually specify -rubygems on the command
> line.
>   
This aspect of rubygems is a common frustration; it comes up pretty 
frequently on the general ruby mailing lists too.
> I''m thinking that we should definitely mention this issue in the
README.
>   
Definitely.
> Shouldn''t we also require ''rubygems'' in all our
samples, to make it as
> easy as possible for folks to play around with wxruby?
>   
I would suggest probably not. My impression is that other ruby libs 
don''t do this. It''s a one-time issue for ruby generally, and
hopefully
the large majority of people will have either never had the problem 
(Windows) or have solved it for some previous use.

I prefer it to the alternative of making rubygems a prerequisite, by 
adding ''require rubygems''. Or wrap it in a begin...rescue, but
it starts
getting a bit messy. Some people have reasons for not wanting to install 
rubygems.
> My assumption at this point is that the primary distribution format will
> be as a gem. And also that basically every ruby system these days will
> (or should) have rubygems installed. Does that sound right?
>   
Well, it widely used, but not everywhere. It''s not part of the standard
library.
> The upcoming alpha release will consist of:
>  - source tarball
>  - binary gems for MSWin, OS X, and Linux
>   
Yup. Let me know when you create the release and I''ll upload an OS X
gem.

cheers
alex

On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 21:38 +0100, Alex Fenton wrote:
> Kevin Smith wrote:
> > Shouldn''t we also require ''rubygems'' in all
our samples, to make it as
> > easy as possible for folks to play around with wxruby?
> >   
> I would suggest probably not. My impression is that other ruby libs 
> don''t do this. It''s a one-time issue for ruby generally,
and hopefully
> the large majority of people will have either never had the problem 
> (Windows) or have solved it for some previous use.
I now agree with you.
> Yup. Let me know when you create the release and I''ll upload an OS
X gem.
Excellent. I''m sure I should know this already, but who volunteered to
do our MSWindows build this time?

Kevin

Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 21:38 +0100, Alex Fenton wrote:
>   
>> Kevin Smith wrote:
>>     
>>> Shouldn''t we also require ''rubygems'' in
all our samples, to make it as
>>> easy as possible for folks to play around with wxruby?
>>>   
>>>       
>> I would suggest probably not. My impression is that other ruby libs 
>> don''t do this. It''s a one-time issue for ruby
generally, and hopefully
>> the large majority of people will have either never had the problem 
>> (Windows) or have solved it for some previous use.
>>     
>
> I now agree with you.
>   
Hmm, I think we should.  If we''re going to distribute as a gem then we 
should probably do a ''require''.  On my Windows system I
/don''t/ have
rubygems in my RUBYOPT environment variable.  I used the installer so 
I''m guessing most people will likely fail on
that.
> Excellent. I''m sure I should know this already, but who
volunteered to
> do our MSWindows build this time?
>
>   
I can do it if no one else volunteers.  I just built a gem and am trying 
it out now.

Roy

On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 23:03 -0400, Roy Sutton wrote:
> Hmm, I think we should.  If we''re going to distribute as a gem
then we
> should probably do a ''require''.  On my Windows system I
/don''t/ have
> rubygems in my RUBYOPT environment variable.  I used the installer so 
> I''m guessing most people will likely fail on that.
That is troubling. I would like to know how other projects handle
this...FXRuby, for example.
> > Excellent. I''m sure I should know this already, but who
volunteered to
> > do our MSWindows build this time?
> >   
> I can do it if no one else volunteers.  I just built a gem and am trying 
> it out now.
Ok, thanks!

Kevin