From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2004-07-30T14:07:11+09:00
Subject: Re: Including other people's Ruby libs in your package

Mehr, Assaph (Assaph) wrote:

>>Both.  Complete control with a minimum of fuss (why must there be a
> 
> choice?).
> Are you familiar with the classic triangle of quality-speed-price? You
> can only choose two out of the three for any project.

I'm familiar with it, and while it's often true, it may not have to be.

> 
> 
>>My hope would be such that there would at least be a default lib
> 
> installed, but that
> 
>>it would not take precedence over any existing files, not stop anyone
> 
> from simply
> 
>>installing a preferred version.
> 
> 
> How about a command-line switches with intelligent defaults? E.g.
> --with-bluecloth=system

That's beginning to sound like work for all involved.

In principal, having multiple copies of a lib laying around shouldn't 
have to be a problem.  Disk space is now cheap.  Having a copy of 
something in local relative directory shouldn't be an issue if the code 
that wants to use it is the only code that knows about it.  Many 
libraries take less space than the accompanying change log files that 
list every minor alteration since day zero.

Packaging trivia:  The tar.gz file for BlueCloth 0.0.4b is 38kb.  The 
bluecloth.rb file, the one that actually does the work, is 31kb 
uncompressed.


James