[#6143] — Christophe Poucet <christophe.poucet@...>

Hello,

17 messages 2005/10/04
[#6147] Re: patch.tgz — nobu.nokada@... 2005/10/04

Hi,

[#6199] Kernel rdoc HTML file not being created when rdoc is run on 1.8.3 — James Britt <ruby@...>

When 1.8.3 came out, I grabbed the source and ran rdoc on it. After

9 messages 2005/10/08

[#6251] RubyGems, upstream releases and idempotence of packaging — Mauricio Fern疣dez <mfp@...>

[sorry for the very late reply; I left this message in +postponed and forgot

14 messages 2005/10/12

[#6282] Wilderness: Need Code to invoke ELTS_SHARED response — "Charles E. Thornton" <ruby-core@...>

Testing the My Object Dump and I am trying to cause creation

13 messages 2005/10/14
[#6283] Re: Wilderness: Need Code to invoke ELTS_SHARED response — Mauricio Fern疣dez <mfp@...> 2005/10/14

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 05:04:59PM +0900, Charles E. Thornton wrote:

[#6288] Re: Wilderness: Need Code to invoke ELTS_SHARED response — "Charles E. Thornton" <ruby-core@...> 2005/10/14

Mauricio Fern疣dez wrote:

[#6365] Time for built-in Rational and Complex classes? — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>

There has been some support for, but no comment on, RCR #260 ("Make

12 messages 2005/10/24
[#6366] Re: Time for built-in Rational and Complex classes? — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/24

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

[#6405] Re: [PATCH] Pathname.exists?() — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>

12 messages 2005/10/25
[#6406] Re: [PATCH] Pathname.exists?() — TRANS <transfire@...> 2005/10/25

On 10/25/05, Berger, Daniel <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> wrote:

[#6408] Re: [PATCH] Pathname.exists?() — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2005/10/25

On 10/26/05, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6442] Wilderness: I Have formatted README.EXT into an HTML Document — "Charles E. Thornton" <ruby-core@...>

I have taken README.EXT (English Version Only) and have reformatted

14 messages 2005/10/27

[#6469] csv.rb a start on refactoring. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>

For a database application I found using CSV to be rather slow.

50 messages 2005/10/28
[#6470] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/28

[#6471] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/28

On Oct 28, 2005, at 8:53 AM, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

[#6474] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/28

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6484] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/29

On Oct 28, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

[#6485] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/29

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6486] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/29

On Oct 28, 2005, at 8:25 PM, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

[#6487] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/29

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6491] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/29

On Oct 28, 2005, at 8:43 PM, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

[#6493] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/29

On Oct 28, 2005, at 10:06 PM, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6496] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/29

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6502] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/30

On Oct 29, 2005, at 12:11 PM, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

[#6505] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/30

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6511] Planning FasterCSV (was Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring.) — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/30

I've decided to create a FasterCSV library, based on the code we

[#6516] Re: Planning FasterCSV (was Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring.) — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/31

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6518] Re: Planning FasterCSV (was Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring.) — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2005/10/31

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Re: RubyGems, upstream releases and idempotence of packaging

From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2005-10-13 11:55:41 UTC
List: ruby-core #6268
On 10/13/05, Mauricio Fern疣dez <mfp@acm.org> wrote:
>
> Binary .gem packages are very useful and there's no problem at all with
> them being available, they're are equivalent to any other binary package
> out there. There's obviously a problem with binary-only releases if we
> don't distribute the code too ;-) [I'm assuming we're considering an
> open development process, as happens with all the RubyGems packages on
> RubyForge and probably with the overwhelming majority of the RubyGems
> packages in use)].
>
> In my previous message, I tried to convey the idea that, given some
> conditions, a pure-Ruby .gem-only release is more akin to binary
> packages than to pristine sources.
>

".gem files should always be considered 'binary releases' in that
they're provided for runtime use, not for creating packages.  If
people want to create a package out of a project, they should seek out
a tarball or SCM access.  If a project releases .gem files only and
provides no SCM access, the (re)packager should bug the author about
this instead of complaining that .gem files aren't everything they
want."  Discuss.

(Note: nothing rhetorical about that.  I lean towards arguing the
affirmative of the above statement, but issue my usual confession of
ignorance and inexperience.  Nonetheless, the negative case needs to
be clearly argued, not assumed.)

Regards,
Gavin


In This Thread