Closed mindreframer closed 11 years ago
well, it's common to handle dependencies with bundler
it uses gemfiles. so you could safely remove .gems file and just do
bundle install
in the project folder to install the needed gems.
Oh yes, I just didn't see the rest of the required files for the transition that's why I was wondering (removed .gems etc).
Btw I think Bundler wasn't prefered cause right now the dependencies are just a few and using Bundler would add more complexity that it would take away. Not sure though, actually I'm curious what @soveran will say.
Bundler is the standard way to handle gem deps. and it reuses your gemspec. where is the complexity??? Just wondering....
that minimal Gemfile is just a goodie. otherwise it would be the first thing I add to the project to get all the dependent gems in place ;)
regards Kristian
Hey @mindreframer, thanks a lot for the pull request. As you said, Bundler became a de facto standard for managing dependencies. But on the other hand, as @Agis- mentioned, we don't like it as a tool (too big, too much internal complexity). Even if using it is easy, the fact that we would be adding a 7 kloc dependency to a 200 loc library seems overkill. We use a combination of two small libraries for managing dependencies: gs and dep. There's a screencast that shows how you can combine them to profit from the .gems file.
Of course, in your local copy of Cuba you can have a Gemsfile (git ignored, perhaps). We just don't like the idea of contributing to making Bundler a default everywhere.
@soveran Well... Nevermind. 90% of all gems use it and you probably have it already installed... But OK, dep and gs might be enough here. cheers! )))
@mindreframer Turns out I don't have it installed, neither do the other Cuba authors. We are serious about it! :-)
$ which bundle || echo 'nothing'
nothing
))))) Guys, you're really SERIOUS! Keep it clean, sorry for that pull-request. I just happen to like bundler... LOL.
@mindreframer What's the purpose of this?