On Jun 5, 9:16=A0am, Intransition <transf... / gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm wondering if a gems `require_path` field is really necessary. To
> what extent is require_paths used by others? I know I use it one of my
> projects, and for a long time I thought I could not do without it, but
> now I think I see a reasonable alternative.
>
> So is it possible... Could we eliminate this field and standardize on
> the convention of a project's 'lib/' directory? Doing so would
> trivialize the relationship between $LOAD_PATH and the location of
> gems and grant us the usual benefits of convention over configuration.
>
> Does anyone have a scenario necessitates configurable require_paths?
> Or at least makes it extremely awkward to do without it?

Hello,

While I think your question is valid, I don't think is the right
channel to ask.

Most of ruby-talk are users of gems, and not gem authors.

Most of gem authors have standardized on 'lib' as directory (with a
few exception advertising also 'ext' directory)

I think this could be better asked and answered at rubygems-devel
list, since this deprecation could affect gems not following the
standards (ala: old gems that most likely someone is stuck with).

--
Luis Lavena