Easily build Portfiles from ruby gems

[James Berry]

Hey Paul,

On Nov 6, 2006, at 6:40 AM, Paul Guyot wrote:

> In both cases, it creates a new directory, rb-gem_name, with the  
> Portfile in it. Please note that this portfile uses the new  
> rubyforge_gem fetch syntax (available with the ruby group  
> modification I just committed to the svn repository). The second  
> version will download the gem in the current directory. I need the  
> file to be able to compute the checksums. Besides, if several gems  
> exist and some of them are binaries, it will ask you to choose a  
> version (using the native gem mechanism).

Looks great! I think this is a good step forward. The gem issues were  
getting a bit weird. This will help MacPorts really shine as a source  
for ruby software.

> This script requires gems (sudo port install rb-rubygems).
>
> With such a script, there's no reason to continue to use gem to  
> install ruby gems. Using gem may yield in inconsistencies. I know  
> that most ruby tutorial around say: get ruby with darwinports, then  
> use gem. But I strongly disagree. At some point, we may rename gem  
> binary and put a fake one that displays a warning message.

Question: does it make sense to now make the gem software installed  
by MacPorts actually install gems into the "usual" location rather  
that in /opt/local? That would mean that MacPorts can source gem, but  
gem installs gems in a typical fashion, not intermingling them into / 
opt/local, which I think would complete the separation.

Thanks for your work on this!

James