From: Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
Date: 2005-10-14T00:57:16+09:00
Subject: Re: RubyGems, upstream releases and idempotence of packaging

---559023410-1594243340-1129219027=:8569
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-559023410-1594243340-1129219027=:8569"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---559023410-1594243340-1129219027=:8569
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Austin Ziegler wrote:

> On 10/12/05, Mauricio Fern=E1ndez <mfp@acm.org> wrote:
> > Yes, I abused the word; I referred to "idempotence of the packaging
> > process" meaning that I can "repackage" the code from a .gem package
        [...]
>=20
> You know, I *choose* (at this point) to not include the Rakefile or
> .gemspec in my packages (either .tar.gz or .gem). This is a packaging
        [...]
> what RubyGems itself provides, IIRC). What real advantage is there for
> me, the developer and original packager, for including this stuff --
> that I honestly consider outside of the scope of a distribution package
> -- in a distribution package?

It means you don't have to create the .rpm, .deb, sun package, the
package for DEC|Compaq|HP|...  for your customers who demand them.
[cf the thread about government users being constrained by what is
packaged.]  Someone else can do it for you.
>=20
> -austin

        Hugh
---559023410-1594243340-1129219027=:8569--
---559023410-1594243340-1129219027=:8569--