On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 23:18 +0900, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> Lothar Scholz <mailinglists / scriptolutions.com> writes:
> 
> > i don't have a problem with writing "require 'rubygems'" on the first
> > line. I wouldn't add a rescue clause as i think it's a valid option to
> > force a user to have rubygems installed as some of the requirements of
> > your library.
> 
> If you decide to go this way, please make sure you also publish your
> software as a gem only, so they won't even have the slightest chance
> to have a look at the code and determine whether it would be
> reasonable to dig it out.

Heartily, heartily seconded. That way, if someone who works on a linux
distro like Fedora, PLD or Debian should want to package software that
uses your library, or to package your library, so that it "Just works"
for their users, they'll give up. That way nobody accidentally makes it
easy to install.

</snark>

Seriously, gems are really hard to package into an RPM. Really, really
hard. I end up un-packing them as tarballs, then patching them out to
remove the require_gem lines, require 'rubygems', and then correcting
the assumptions about the location of data files. 

And before you say "... just use gems", let me point out something:

To run, say, Rails, with gems:

  1) manually install ruby
  2) manually install rubygems
  3) gem install rails

To install rails under the distro I work on:

  1) poldek -i rails

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Ari