GitHub

Comments and changes to this ticket

• 

  PJ Hyett June 25th, 2008 @ 12:23 AM

  • → State changed from “new” to “open”

  This is going to sound unorthodox, I'm going to recommend you just change your gemspec to set the fields directly instead of using constants.

  s.name = 'amazon-ec2' instead of s.name = GEM

  Technically, there's nothing wrong with how you're doing it, but I'd rather not change the code to support the technique you're using.

  Due to the fact that the gem names don't have to match the repository name, I can't make any assumptions about the install instructions, and I also don't want to eval the gemspec and run the risk of a security issue just get the name.

• 

  Glenn Rempe June 25th, 2008 @ 12:52 PM

  • → Tag changed from “” to “bug gem ui”

  I would rather not do that. Not out of laziness, but out of the sense that I am concerned that you guys are straying farther and farther on the gemspec that you will build from a 'standard gemspec' that just works in all situations except on GitHub. (BTW the technique I am using is the simplest form of ruby in a gemspec and is used in MANY gemspecs.)

  This is a GREAT feature, and you have the potential to replace rubyforge in this role, but you need to work within the standards, and not create your own.

  You guys need to get closer to working with ANY gemspec, not building a new set of rules for your own gemspec format that people need to follow.

  I still see this as a bug and I hope that you will open up a wider conversation on the topic of gemspecs within your GitHub team.

• 

  defunkt June 25th, 2008 @ 02:48 PM

  I just want to chime in on this statement: "BTW the technique I am using is the simplest form of ruby in a gemspec and is used in MANY gemspecs."

  It was used in many gemspecs, before Hoe. The 'constants at the top' was popular because so many of us would copy our Rakefiles from existing projects - say net-ssh - and insert our own gem-specific values. With Hoe and Echoe, this is no longer an issue and the technique has fallen out of style.

  I would say the amazon-ec2.gemspec is, by 2008 standards, unorthodox.

  That said, I do agree with your point Glenn.

• 

  Glenn Rempe June 25th, 2008 @ 06:04 PM

  Thanks for weighing in defunkt. To be clear up front, I love what you guys are doing. Maybe thats why I pick on the details where I feel you are straying :-)

  I appreciate you agreeing with my overall point. I know its hard but the more you can operate without any caveats and parse all valid gemspecs the better for everyone.

  Regarding my 'unorthodox' nature. Well, maybe I would call that a point of personal style. :-) But I will think about changing. :-)

  Re: Hoe. I just did a tiny experiment where I used Dr. Nic's newgem generator to generate a 'foo' gem skeleton. Within there I ran the following to generate a gemspec (as recommended on gems.github.com):

  /tmp/foo\ > rake debug_gem
  (in /private/tmp/foo)
  Gem::Specification.new do |s|
    s.name = %q{foo}
    s.version = "0.0.1"
  ...
  

  Would your current code for the gem icon parse this s.name correctly? Or is it ONLY an edge case where you use a constant as I did? I would say that the technique I outlined is clearly in the mainstream as I think many people use the gem generator to create their gems and those folks would thus follow the steps outlined above.

  Cheers.