# Packaging common code with gems **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [June 6, 2010, 10:45am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/packaging-common-code-with-gems/189727 "2010-06-06T10:45:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sentinel)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 10:45am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/packaging-common-code-with-gems/189727/1 "2010-06-06T10:45:20Z")
Let’s say I have some common code, I use in various scripts or ruby apps. I’ve got it in a common folder which I’ve put in my RUBYLIB environment variable. In the old days (Java), I’d put this in (say) commons.jar, and distribute such jars with my apps. Now if i decide to put these apps on github or create gems, how would i distribute the common code. 1. Should I keep copies with each app (more maintenance) 2. Should i create a common gem ? 3. Include these files in the gemspec (pointing to a folder outside the tree) thx. ---
**Author:** ![sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sentinel)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 12:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/packaging-common-code-with-gems/189727/2 "2010-06-06T12:56:18Z")
On Jun 6, 4:45 am, “R… Kumar” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > 1. Include these files in the gemspec (pointing to a folder outside the > tree) #1 might not be so bad if you vendor them. That way there is no dependency but there is central management. Otherwise #2 is a good option. #3 sounds like a very bad idea. You might also consider, how common is common? Are these libs common enough that you might already find their equivalent in a support library like ActiveSupport or Facets? Where your common libs do not appear you mght even be able to contribute to those projects. ``` trans. ``` ---
**Author:** ![sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sentinel)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2010, 3:31am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/packaging-common-code-with-gems/189727/3 "2010-06-07T03:31:53Z")
On 2010-06-06 01:45:23 -0700, R… Kumar said: > 1. Include these files in the gemspec (pointing to a folder outside the > tree) > > thx. I would write a gem. You can create your own gem server very easily if you don’t want to publish it. Rein H. > **[Puppet Infrastructure & IT Automation at Scale | Puppet by Perforce](https://www.puppet.com/)** > > Puppet is the industry-leading automation solution for configuration management, compliance, CI/CD, patch management, IT automation, and more. [http://reinh.com](http://reinh.com) ---
**Author:** ![sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sentinel)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 1:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/packaging-common-code-with-gems/189727/4 "2010-06-06T13:10:39Z")
Thomas S. wrote: > On Jun 6, 4:45�am, “R… Kumar” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > 1. Include these files in the gemspec (pointing to a folder outside the > > tree) > > #1 might not be so bad if you vendor them. That way there is no > dependency but there is central management. > > Otherwise #2 is a good option. #3 sounds like a very bad idea. > > You might also consider, how common is common? Are these libs common > enough that you might already find their equivalent in a support > library like ActiveSupport or Facets? Where your common libs do not > appear you mght even be able to contribute to those projects. > > ``` > trans. > > ``` I haven’t looked at ActiveSupport. These are command line apps (not web stuff). These are not so common enough that Facets might have them. I used Facets a few years back but lost touch with it. Is it 1.9 compliant ?