Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:19:55 +0100 From: Eric <freebsdlists-ruby@chillibear.com> To: <freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org> Subject: rubygems.org and MASTER_SITE_RUBYFORGE Message-ID: <C7FE3ADB.18E78%freebsdlists-ruby@chillibear.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi all, I've noticed that from time to time the migration of gems from rubyforge.org to gemcutter.org/rubygems.org has been mentioned on the lists, but it would appear nothing has been changed yet in the bsd.sites.mk file (may have missed something in progress of course). Thought it would be worth bringing the matter up for a quick discussion before randomly sending in PRs :) I was wondering if people felt it was better to create a new master site for rubygems.org rather than add them to the existing MASTER_SITE_RUBYFORGE entry. It looks to me like the rubygems.org hosting is essentially 'flat' as opposed to the rubyforge where things were in sub-directories so for example looking at the sys-cpu gem which I just submitted a port for, on RubyForge it's here: http://files.rubyforge.vm.bytemark.co.uk/sysutils/sys-cpu-0.6.1.gem and on RubyGems is here: http://production.s3.rubygems.org/gems/sys-cpu-0.6.1.gem I'm sure there are plenty of others like that, so I'm not sure just adding the s3 and cf hosts to the MASTER_SITE_RUBYFORGE entry is the best way of doing things, since the RF/RG hosting solutions do not directly line up. Instead perhaps adding an additional MASTER_SITE_RUBYGEMS (with say a macro of RG for ease) would be better. Then as gem ports are upgraded and the source is no longer on RF the MASTER_SITES=RF in the Makefile can be changed as part of the upgrade. Thoughts? Worth knocking up a diff and getting it in? Regards Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C7FE3ADB.18E78%freebsdlists-ruby>