How best to handle ruby gems

[Grant Heaslip]

The impression I have from that and other sources is that, for better or
worse, using gem to install gems is really the way to go. I'm not sure how
feasible this is (I get the impression that this isn't somewhere they want
to go), but it would be great if port could manage gem installations (though
the gem repository, not the sparse and outdated port repository) so that
users would only have to deal with one package manager.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org>wrote:

>
> On Apr 29, 2009, at 18:34, Grant Heaslip wrote:
>
>  I'm new to MacPorts (and ruby development in general), so forgive me if
>> this is a stupid question, but I'm trying to figure out what the best way of
>> installing ruby gems (such as rails, rake and mongrel) is.
>>
>> From reading tutorials, I get the impression that I should be using gem,
>> not port to install them, but something about using two different systems to
>> handle installing binaries that interact with each other seems like a bad
>> idea. At the same time, many of the gems in MacPorts seem out of date, and
>> not all of them seem to be available at all.
>>
>> Any thoughts on this? I want to do this right the first time so I can get
>> on to developing without worrying about stuff breaking.
>>
>
> This topic came up a couple weeks ago on the macports-dev list. You can
> read the thread here:
>
> http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2009-April/008250.html
>
> I don't know that we have a good answer to this question at this time,
> unfortunately.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20090430/e0ba717e/attachment.html>