From: Sam Roberts <sroberts@...>
Date: 2005-09-27T13:19:29+09:00
Subject: Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system

Quoting halostatue@gmail.com, on Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:49:14AM +0900:
> On 9/26/05, Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> wrote:
> > Quoting james@grayproductions.net, on Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:06:01AM
> > +0900:
> >> I think many of the rest of us consider a packaging system a critical
> >> language feature, past due. So don't fault us for moving forward and
> >> we won't fault you for standing still.
> [...]
> 
> > Packaging is close to non-controversial, as far as I can tell. Other
> > than wishes for improved functionality, I have heard almost no debate.
> 
> Um. I'm not sure where you're getting that. The entire thread -- that
> I'll clearly admit to dominating because I'm tired of obstructionism
> from people who aren't in the least concerned about other platforms --

Unless my memory fails me, aren't you the guy who said debian users
using ruby should just use gems and not use anything else?

I'd just like to use whatever the native OS uses to install packages.
And I'd like it to be easy for packagers to produce those packages, so I
see more of them.

And so should you. Why should an Ubuntu user have to install apps with a
tool other than Synaptic because its written in ruby?

> was about Debian folks not liking the idea of having to adapt to Yet
> Another Packaging System. Period.

We heard very different things in that thread. What I heard is that
because of the way gems install, it makes them hard to package. And they
install that way because of versioning.

install.rb --prefix ... made packaging easy.

> Please, elaborate on these "new problems." I mean it.

This elaboration has being going on for a week.

If somebody has somwhere described how gems will work in the future
avoiding these problems, I missed it in the noise of you saying they
aren't problems.

Sam