Asp Forum - How can I find the source of ruby package installed by gem

Zhao Yi

1/6/2009 1:59:00 AM

I installed a ruby application by gem. Where can I find its source code?
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

7 Answers

Tim Hunter

1/6/2009 2:14:00 AM

Zhao Yi wrote:
> I installed a ruby application by gem. Where can I find its source code?

gem unpack

unpacks a gem to the current directory.

gem env

shows where gems are installed.

--
RMagick: http://rmagick.ruby...

Zhao Yi

1/6/2009 2:27:00 AM

Tim Hunter wrote:
> Zhao Yi wrote:
>> I installed a ruby application by gem. Where can I find its source code?
>
> gem unpack
>
> unpacks a gem to the current directory.
>
> gem env
>
> shows where gems are installed.

OK, it works. thanks.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Rob Biedenharn

1/6/2009 3:10:00 AM

On Jan 5, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Zhao Yi wrote:

> Tim Hunter wrote:
>> Zhao Yi wrote:
>>> I installed a ruby application by gem. Where can I find its source
>>> code?
>>
>> gem unpack
>>
>> unpacks a gem to the current directory.
>>
>> gem env
>>
>> shows where gems are installed.
>
> OK, it works. thanks.
> --

There's also gem list -d gemname

$ gem list -d rails

*** LOCAL GEMS ***

rails (2.1.2, 2.1.0, 2.0.2, 1.2.6, 1.2.5, 1.2.3)
Author: David Heinemeier Hansson
Rubyforge: http://rubyforge.org/proj...
Homepage: http://www.rubyo...
Installed at (2.1.2): /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8
(2.1.0): /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8
(2.0.2): /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8
(1.2.6): /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/
Versions/1.8/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8
(1.2.5): /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8
(1.2.3): /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/
Versions/1.8/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8

Web-application framework with template engine, control-flow layer,
and ORM.

So if you're looking to know where a particular version of a gem is
installed, it can be better than gem env:

$ gem env
RubyGems Environment:
- RUBYGEMS VERSION: 1.3.1
- RUBY VERSION: 1.8.6 (2008-03-03 patchlevel 114) [universal-
darwin9.0]
- INSTALLATION DIRECTORY: /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8
- RUBY EXECUTABLE: /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/
Versions/1.8/usr/bin/ruby
- EXECUTABLE DIRECTORY: /usr/bin
- RUBYGEMS PLATFORMS:
- ruby
- universal-darwin-9
- GEM PATHS:
- /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8
- /Users/rab/.gem/ruby/1.8
- /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/lib/
ruby/gems/1.8
- GEM CONFIGURATION:
- :update_sources => true
- :verbose => true
- :benchmark => false
- :backtrace => false
- :bulk_threshold => 1000
- REMOTE SOURCES:
- http://gems.ruby...

Hopefully, this gives you much more information that you needed ;-)

-Rob

Rob Biedenharn http://agileconsult...
Rob@AgileConsultingLLC.com

Brad Greer

1/22/2011 1:23:00 PM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:06:41 +0100, Kirk McElhearn <kirkmc (at) mac
(dot) com> wrote:

>On 2011-01-22 06:19:51 +0100, band beyond description
><shadowboxing.the@apocalypse.com> said:
>
>>>
>>> It does make me wonder why they didn't just release this on a hard
>>> drive. It would have made a lot more sense.
>>>
>>> Edwin
>>
>> Now *that* is a great idea, but it probably never occurred to the record
>> company wankers as it would throw them out of work...it would take the GD
>> to shepherd something like that to fruition, but would even they be up for
>> it...?
>
>I've only seen that done for a couple of magazines: The New Yorker and
>Playboy. I've yet to see music released like that.
>
>In a way, it's risky; if the drive crashes, you don't have the music.
>However, releasing on a flash drive would be more realistic. It's not
>that expensive to get a 64 GB drive these days; certainly less than
>what it costs for all that packaging.
>
Just FLAC downloads with an option to purchase the booklet would work
for me. I have no need for 60 CDs (plus, if they released it as
lossless downloads we could get better than 16 bit audio).

marcman

1/22/2011 5:18:00 PM

On Jan 22, 4:06 am, Kirk McElhearn <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote:
> On 2011-01-22 06:19:51 +0100, band beyond description
> <shadowboxing....@apocalypse.com> said:
>
>
>
> >> It does make me wonder why they didn't just release this on a hard
> >> drive. It would have made a lot more sense.
>
> >> Edwin
>
> > Now *that* is a great idea, but it probably never occurred to the record
> > company wankers as it would throw them out of work...it would take the GD
> > to shepherd something like that to fruition, but would even they be up for
> > it...?
>
> I've only seen that done for a couple of magazines: The New Yorker and
> Playboy. I've yet to see music released like that.
>
> In a way, it's risky; if the drive crashes, you don't have the music.
> However, releasing on a flash drive would be more realistic. It's not
> that expensive to get a 64 GB drive these days; certainly less than
> what it costs for all that packaging.
>
> Kirk
> --
>
> Kirkville --http://www.mce...
> Writings about more than just Macs
> Take Control of iTunes 10: The FAQ:http://www.mce.../itunes

This has been done. Not sure if this was the first time, but when I
was out in Indio for Phish Festival 8 they were selling the shows on
little mini drives rather than on CDs.

I think part of the deal here with the Europe set, is that many people
will actually want the packaging.

Now I also recall at some Ratdog and Phil shows that you can buy a
copy of that nights show before and during the show and get a
bracelet, then wait in line after the show to pick up your already
paid for copy of the show you just saw. It would occur to me that
considering the minimalistic packaging on *those* show CDs, a mini
thumb drive housing the show files would be a much better alternative
than actually burning the shows to CD. First and foremost it would
save time and get the line moving faster and the people out of the
venue quicker, and secondly it would cut down on waste. Those mini
thumb drives could be reused again once you get the files home and
onto your own hard drive. If they really wanted to get organized about
it, they could allow people to bring the old drives from previous
shows with them and if they turned them in, maybe even get a small
credit towards the cost of that night's show.

Edwin Hurwitz

1/22/2011 5:45:00 PM

In article <4d3a9e21$0$5385$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>,
Kirk McElhearn <kirkmc (at) mac (dot) com> wrote:

> On 2011-01-22 06:19:51 +0100, band beyond description
> <shadowboxing.the@apocalypse.com> said:
>
> >>
> >> It does make me wonder why they didn't just release this on a hard
> >> drive. It would have made a lot more sense.
> >>
> >> Edwin
> >
> > Now *that* is a great idea, but it probably never occurred to the record
> > company wankers as it would throw them out of work...it would take the GD
> > to shepherd something like that to fruition, but would even they be up for
> > it...?
>
> I've only seen that done for a couple of magazines: The New Yorker and
> Playboy. I've yet to see music released like that.
>
> In a way, it's risky; if the drive crashes, you don't have the music.
> However, releasing on a flash drive would be more realistic. It's not
> that expensive to get a 64 GB drive these days; certainly less than
> what it costs for all that packaging.
>
> Kirk

Flash drives also fail and with a lot less warning. However, CDs also
fail after time. It's turning out that a lot of digital music is being
lost quicker than analog. However, if I were to get it on a drive I'd
make sure I had a backup.

Another option, although I have my reservations about it, is to purchase
server access where you can stream as needed. I heard rumors about 6 or
7 years ago that this was the future of media releases and so far with
things like Netflix/Apple TV, it looks like it is heading that way. I
actually like that combination pretty well. For a $100 investment and
less than $10/mo, I have access to a lot of movies and TV shows (albeit
not as they are released). Hell, Sweets has been operating on a similar
model for quite a while now!

bzlrbi

1/24/2011 1:42:00 AM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:06:41 +0100, Kirk McElhearn <kirkmc (at) mac
(dot) com> wrote:

>On 2011-01-22 06:19:51 +0100, band beyond description
><shadowboxing.the@apocalypse.com> said:
>
>>>
>>> It does make me wonder why they didn't just release this on a hard
>>> drive. It would have made a lot more sense.
>>>
>>> Edwin
>>
>> Now *that* is a great idea, but it probably never occurred to the record
>> company wankers as it would throw them out of work...it would take the GD
>> to shepherd something like that to fruition, but would even they be up for
>> it...?
>
>I've only seen that done for a couple of magazines: The New Yorker and
>Playboy. I've yet to see music released like that.
>
>In a way, it's risky; if the drive crashes, you don't have the music.
>However, releasing on a flash drive would be more realistic. It's not
>that expensive to get a 64 GB drive these days; certainly less than
>what it costs for all that packaging.
>
>Kirk

Presumably anyone who ordered the hard drive version would know
enought to back the sucker up upon receipt.

I wish they'd do this. 24bit por favor.

comp.lang.ruby

How can I find the source of ruby package installed by gem

Zhao Yi

Tim Hunter

Zhao Yi

Rob Biedenharn

Brad Greer

marcman

Edwin Hurwitz

bzlrbi

x Login to ForumsZone