Raking RubyGems


#1

[Note: I’m reposting this to the mailing list since I think
the gateway was down when I posted through news:comp.lang.ruby]

Hello,

So I’m finally getting around to learning how to package
a gem with rake, and I’ve found that in addition to Chad’s
wonderful Pickaxe writeup, looking at other people’s Rakefiles
has been a great help.

However, at least one question still lingers:

In Rake’s Rakefile, I am puzzled by why lines 176-179 are
not replaced by s.rdoc_options=rd.options similar to
the way s.extra_rdoc_files=rd.rdoc_files is done on the
line before – see

http://rubyforge.org/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php/rake/Rakefile?annotate=1.73&root=rake

Jim, in case you read this, there is a typo in the
the header comments -> “is may be”?

FWIW, it took me a while to figure out that I needed to use

rake package

to get rake to spit out all three types of packages I had
requested; Chad’s Pickaxe writeup only has an explicit-
target example, so I was doing,

rake pkg/fUnit-0.0.1.gem
rake pkg/fUnit-0.0.1.tgz
rake pkg/fUnit-0.0.1.zip

If you want to take a look at my current Rakefile mess,
and offer patches, see

http://rubyforge.org/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php/trunk/Rakefile?root=funit&view=markup

Thanks,


#2

Bil K. wrote:

In Rake’s Rakefile, I am puzzled by why lines 176-179 are
not replaced by s.rdoc_options=rd.options similar to
the way s.extra_rdoc_files=rd.rdoc_files is done on the
line before

Good idea! I’ve modified the Rakefile to do exactly that.

Jim, in case you read this, there is a typo in the
the header comments -> “is may be”?

Yep, typo. Should be just “may be”

FWIW, it took me a while to figure out that I needed to use

rake package

to get rake to spit out all three types of packages I had
requested;

‘rake -T’ might help here.


– Jim W.