On 10/17/07, Eric Hodel <drbrain / segment7.net> wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 04:56 , Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > On 10/15/07, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi <nakahiro / sarion.co.jp> wrote:
> >> Yes. Generally we committers need to keep the stable branch "stable"
> >> (there's no actual svn branch for 1.9 though). Release maintainer
> >> will
> >> restrict incompatible change of the bundled version of Rake. (feature
> >> adding must be allowed as far as it's compatible with former
> >> versions.) And when an user installs a new version of Rake with
> >> RubyGems, the user cannot activate the new gem without declaring 'gem
> >> "rake"' explicitly.
> >
> > That's a problem, since most people don't work with Rake as a library,
> > but as a binary. There's no viable way to do "gem 'rake'" from the
> > command-line.
> This is a feature of gems.
>
> $ rake --version
> rake, version 0.7.3
> $ rake _0.7.2_ --version
> rake, version 0.7.2

Only works for a rake stub that uses RubyGems.

NaHi is talking about rake in bin with the libraries in lib (not
site_lib, not gem).

So, there's no viable way to do "gem 'rake'" from the command-line.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin / zieglers.ca