Re: Austin Ziegler's behaviour (Was: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths?)

2007/10/30, MenTaLguY <[e-mail]>:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:52:29 +0900, "Luis Lavena" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > If we start labelling every users choice of platform as "broken" and
> > always tell they "your platform is broken, don't ask this here",
> > similar reactions will show up.
>
> There is, however, a lot of pent-up frustration in the Ruby community
> regarding Debian's packaging.  It might be worthwhile to point out that
> Debian now has a ruby-full package, which includes everything one might
> expect in a Ruby installation.
>
> (To avoid confusion, and for consistency with other Debian packages,
> it might be better if the 'ruby' package were e.g. 'ruby-core', and
> 'ruby-full' just 'ruby', and the package versions synched up, but
> that's a comparatively minor issue...)

I think it would help, and not only for debian, if the rubygems team
could split the local package index with the rest of the project. The
running code only needs to know what packages are available or not and
be able to populate the $LOAD_PATH. For this, it is only useful to
locate one (or more) package description indexes.

By checking the write ability of a gemspec, the gem command-line can
then decide if the package is locked (=> maintained by the system
package manager) or not. It could also fallback on a user repository
if the whole index is locked.

-- 
Cheers,
  zimbatm