On 1/29/07, Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/29/07, Sean Surname <sorourke+ruby-forum / ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > Mike Harris wrote:
> > > Could you not just install with RubyGems and then invoke the absolute
> > > path of the file manually, instead of requiring or using the RubyGems
> > > bin wrapper?
> > It's a little trickier than that.  You need to (1) make modules
> > available via ordinary 'require' instead of 'require_gem' (or whatever
> > we like to use today), (2) prevent "require 'rubygems'" from insinuating
> > rubygems into your program, and (3) still allow 'gem install foo' to
> > work for module authors that insiste upon only distributing gems.
>
> require_gem has not been required for a very long time, and is now
> deprecated. You just use "require" -- after, of course, patching
> require with "require 'rubygems'".
>
> Frankly, I think anyone who is worried about this is worrying too much
> about little things that don't make big differences.
>
> (Now, there are things that people who write gems should do to make it
> so that it doesn't matter whether you've installed a library directly
> or as a gem, but that's a slightly different issue than worrying about
> rubygems "intrusion" on runtime, which is nonsensical worrying.)

Can you talk more about that last part?  Or point to more
resources/threads on it?

- Rob