I’m wondering if a gems require_path field is really necessary. To
what extent is require_paths used by others? I know I use it one of my
projects, and for a long time I thought I could not do without it, but
now I think I see a reasonable alternative.
So is it possible… Could we eliminate this field and standardize on
the convention of a project’s ‘lib/’ directory? Doing so would
trivialize the relationship between $LOAD_PATH and the location of
gems and grant us the usual benefits of convention over configuration.
Does anyone have a scenario necessitates configurable require_paths?
Or at least makes it extremely awkward to do without it?
On Jun 5, 9:16am, Intransition [email protected] wrote:
Does anyone have a scenario necessitates configurable require_paths?
Or at least makes it extremely awkward to do without it?
Hello,
While I think your question is valid, I don’t think is the right
channel to ask.
Most of ruby-talk are users of gems, and not gem authors.
Most of gem authors have standardized on ‘lib’ as directory (with a
few exception advertising also ‘ext’ directory)
I think this could be better asked and answered at rubygems-devel
list, since this deprecation could affect gems not following the
standards (ala: old gems that most likely someone is stuck with).
On Jun 6, 12:15am, Luis L. [email protected] wrote:
gems and grant us the usual benefits of convention over configuration.
Most of gem authors have standardized on ‘lib’ as directory (with a
few exception advertising also ‘ext’ directory)
I think this could be better asked and answered at rubygems-devel
list, since this deprecation could affect gems not following the
standards (ala: old gems that most likely someone is stuck with).
Good point. I will transfer post. Thanks.