From: Chad Fowler <chad@...>
Date: 2005-10-11T06:45:04+09:00
Subject: Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system

--Apple-Mail-12-349644365
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed


On 10-Oct-05, at 8:41 AM, Sean E. Russell wrote:

> On Wednesday 28 September 2005 08:54, Hugh Sasse wrote:
>
>> I beg to differ: gems do make installation easy, and provide useful
>> supporting infrastructure for testing and documentation, which means
>> not only do you get a simple install, but good practices are
>> encouraged.  This cultural stuff is useful.  And I think the
>> simplicity of installing Rails has contributed to its success, for
>> one thing.
>>
>
> That's the funniest thing, because my current objections to Gems =20
> are based
> largely on multiple bad experiences trying to install Rails through =20=

> RubyGems.
>
>
>> But RubGems doesn't prevent this.  If you get a gem and can unpack
>> it, and then you can repackage it using whichever packaging system
>> fits your setup, then what is the problem?  Specifically: what can
>> gems do to make [re]packaging easier?
>>
>
> Mauricio Fern=E1ndez and Eivind Eklund have covered this quite well, =20=

> I think.  I
> don't do a lot of repackaging, so I can't contribute anything =20
> beyond what
> they've already said.
>
> A long time ago, before REXML was added to Ruby's CVS, I tried =20
> building a Gem
> for REXML, and the experience was an utter failure.  I admit that this
> colored my perception of RubyGems, because even back then people =20
> were pushing
> me to distribute REXML as a Gem.  I echoed Austin's attitude toward =20=

> Debian
> packagers.

Sean, what were you using before REXML was added to Ruby's CVS?  We =20
wrote RubyGems after that.  Were you
using Ryan Leavengood's old prototype?  If so, that's only related in =20=

name and purpose.

Chad=

--Apple-Mail-12-349644365--