# RubyForge website **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [January 16, 2007, 5:15pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubyforge-website/81968 "2007-01-16T17:15:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![robertjames](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@robertjames](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/robertjames)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 5:15pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubyforge-website/81968/1 "2007-01-16T17:15:35Z")
A lot of projects in RubyForge have no website, other than the “Hopefully coming soon…” message. Might I suggest that the site default to the RDoc of that gem (or gems)? Advantages: - Every project has a site letting you know what it does (sometimes there is next to no info on the project page). - Encourages developers to keep the RDoc up to date - The most common site that projects do have is simply their RDoc. So, we’ve removed one step for all of those projects. Disadvantages: - Requires a little processing on the rubyforge server (to extract the RDoc) ---
**Author:** ![robertjames](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@robertjames](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/robertjames)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2007, 5:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubyforge-website/81968/2 "2007-01-16T17:26:39Z")
> A lot of projects in RubyForge have no website, other than > the “Hopefully coming soon…” message. Might I suggest that > the site default to the RDoc of that gem (or gems)? Yup, or have that in one of the tabs for each project. > > Advantages: > > - Every project has a site letting you know what it does > (sometimes there is next to no info on the project page). > - Encourages developers to keep the RDoc up to date > - The most common site that projects do have is simply their > RDoc. So, we’ve removed one step for all of those projects. > > Disadvantages: > > - Requires a little processing on the rubyforge server (to extract the > RDoc) Is there any security aspect to this - does running RDoc on a gem require installing it or executing any of the code in the gem? I suppose it could be done on a different machine and uploaded to RubyForge, though… Yours, Tom ---
**Author:** ![robertjames](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@robertjames](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/robertjames)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 2:52am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubyforge-website/81968/3 "2007-01-18T02:52:11Z")
- Tom C. (removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > - The most common site that projects do have is simply their > > RDoc. So, we’ve removed one step for all of those projects. > > > > Disadvantages: > > > > - Requires a little processing on the rubyforge server (to extract the > > RDoc) > > Is there any security aspect to this - does running RDoc on a gem > require installing it or executing any of the code in the gem? I > suppose it could be done on a different machine and uploaded to > RubyForge, though… Don’t do this unless you either hard-code the RDoc template or limit it to a pre-selected list. Using the options specified in the Gem specification allows Gem authors to run arbitrary Ruby code on the RubyForge server. I’ve written about this several times on the RubyGems mailing list in the last week or so. For those of you not subscribed to the RubyGems mailing list, you can find the relevant posts at the following URLs: [http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2007-January/002433.html](http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2007-January/002433.html) [http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2007-January/002454.html](http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2007-January/002454.html) [http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2007-January/002459.html](http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2007-January/002459.html) [http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2007-January/002466.html](http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2007-January/002466.html) [http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2007-January/002471.html](http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2007-January/002471.html) Fair warning: Each post is longer and more detailed than the previous one, so do yourself a favor and grab a soda or beer before diving in. PS. I have a mostly working patch for RubyGems that creates a protected chroot() environment for generating documentation. Since this seems to be a topic of interest I’ll get it clean enough to post for discussion.