How best to handle ruby gems

Joshua Root jmr at
Thu Apr 30 08:16:03 PDT 2009

Grant Heaslip wrote:
> 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 installations (though the gem repository, not the sparse and outdated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.

A gem -> port interface such that all gems are automagically available
as ports would be great; please, by all means, write one!

The same goes for python's easy_install, perl's cpan, etc.

In the meantime, it has been suggested that the versions of these tools
installed by MacPorts should install to somewhere different when run
directly by the user (as opposed to being run by port). Both locations
should of course be equally accessible to the language runtime. This
seems like a good way to go, as it would avoid conflicts between port
and non-port versions of modules (without requiring someone to make a
portfile for every single module they want to use).

Portfiles would still be required for any module needed as a dependency
of another port.

- Josh

More information about the macports-users mailing list