On Monday, September 27, 2004, 12:44:31 AM, benny wrote:

> Chad Fowler wrote:

>> 
>> Did you also do "require 'rubygems'"?

> no I thought this was only for "on the fly installation".
> I really don't want to include the whole rubygems thing 
> everywhere I need a gem-package

That's life, I'm afraid.  It's the price for having the convenience of
RubyGems.  Of course, RG could have been designed/implemented
differently, not needing that extra require, but I believe the right
choice was made.  If RG is a standard part of Ruby one day, it will no
longer be necessary.

If you object to the keyboarding hassle, set your environment variable

  RUBYOPT=rubygems

If you object to the run-time overhead, rest assured that it is fairly
light, I believe.

> [...]
> but my previous installation also installed into
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8

> a log4r.rb and the dir log4r, so that I could do a simple
> require 'log4r' in my scripts

> why doesn't this work anymore?

It's changed in the latest version.  It worked before by installing
library stubs which load the gem for you.  However, that solution is
fragile, misleading, and pretty ugly, I reckon.  After you require
'rubygems' now, any "require" statement will search your site_ruby
directory as well as your installed gems.  It's a more elegant and
robust solution, with the associated "hassle".

Cheers,
Gavin