On Jun 6, 12:15=A0am, Luis Lavena <luislav... / gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

Good point. I will transfer post. Thanks.