Bill Atkins wrote:
> Here are some issues I've noticed with RubyGems' user interface:
> 
>    - Why do I have to confirm each _required_ dependency?  What chance
>      is there of leaving off a required dependency and still having a
>      functioning install?

Quite good if you've installed some software as non-gems.  That being 
said, it is probably an edge case and you make a good point.

>    - Why does each confirmation happen individually?  It would make
>      sense to confirm or reject _all_ required dependencies and thus
>      abort the install, but I can't see any reason for the current way
>      of doing things.  At the very least, why can't it find all the
>      dependencies for the current package so that I can hit 'Y'
>      repeatedly, instead of waiting a second or two for it to find the
>      next dependency?

Good point.

>    - Why do i have to specify -r on the command line to build
>      remotely?  I understand that local gem installations are possible
>      (and maybe even common), but wouldn't it make sense for gem to
>      assume that "gem install rails" is a remote install and "gem
>      install rails.gem" is a local install?  In this case it wouldn't
>      have to bother with this "attempting local installation"
>      business.

The -r is not required for remote installs, its just that it checks 
locally now.

However, there are plans to unify the specification of gems so that the 
local/remote, version-requirements, and platform and all be specified in 
a URL like manner (rather than as options on the command line).

And I agree, the announcement that it couldn't find a local gem is 
annoying, since the trend is that most installs are remote.

>    - Why on earth, on earth, on earth is the package's documentation
>      built locally?  It is by far the lengthiest part of the install,
>      and I can see no good reason why this couldn't be done at gem
>      build-time.  Am I missing something here?  How could the
>      documentation differ from one machine to the next such that this
>      approach would make sense?

(1) Bandwidth as someone else has mentioned, (2) the ability to apply 
different RDoc templates (my local docs all use the same template, no 
matter what the software author used).  And you don't need to build the 
rdocs if you don't want to.

>    - When there are warnings in the documentation building, why do
>      these appear last, making it seem that there were problems in
>      installing the gem itself?

Agreed, confusing.  The whole local/remote unification thing will 
probably address this.

>    - Why so little output while installing?  Can't i at least pass a
>      -v flag to get a better indication of what's actually happening?
>      It would certainly make gem installs seem more responsive.

Better feedback during install, gotcha!  Agreed.

-- Jim Weirich


-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.