From: Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
Date: 2005-10-13T21:29:06+09:00
Subject: Re: RubyGems, upstream releases and idempotence of packaging

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

> 
> ".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.

Basically against making life more difficult for repackagers,
because :

  it hinders the uptake of ruby (<- library dependency probs)
  it generates heat and little light on the lists
  Authors could do without being bugged. 
  If gems make more work for authors due to repackage-pestering, 
    people could well say "stuff the gems" -> back to square 0.

> 
> (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.)

Hope the above is concise enough for busy people.
> 
> Regards,
> Gavin
> 
        Hugh
>