From: Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
Date: 2005-10-13T04:23:48+09:00
Subject: Re: RubyGems, upstream releases and idempotence of packaging

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Jim Weirich wrote:

> 
> Hugh Sasse said:
> 
> > Does this mean that binary gems would be impossible?
> > Or at least forbidden?  Some packages are distributed for windows
> > only, which saves on download size, disk space....
> 
> I think there is some confusion on whether a .gem file is a distribution
> format, or a source archive format.  For pure ruby gems, the difference is
> small (but important!  Hence Mauricio's posting).
> 
> However, for binary gems I believe that it is clearly intended for
> distribution and installation only.

However, if we apply what Donald Norman would call a Forcing
Function: somthing in the system that ensures people behave a
certain way, then we need to be careful about:

  1 People who know what they are doing and want to create binary
    gems
  2 People who are trying to create normal gems but mistakenly avoid
    the source archive format,
  3 People who are bloody-minded enough to try to break the archive
    format by turning it off when it should be on.

Possibly 3 can't be handled elegantly and safely while still
permitting 1 and encouraging 2.

        Hugh