From: Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Date: 2004-08-22T04:55:21+09:00
Subject: Re: Package requests for the prelim. Ruby Production Archive


On Aug 21, 2004, at 14:44, Mauricio Fern�ndez wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 04:07:07AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
>>> Now, I hear the standard ri will be modified because otherwise 
>>> RubyGems
>>> wouldn't be able to achieve real ri/rdoc integration.
>>
>> That's news to me :)  AFAIK, the gems team is using the off-the-shelf
>> rdoc/ri.
>>
>> However, if there are features I could add that would help all you
>> packaging folk, just let me know.
>
> I was misled by http://rubygems.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.pl?ChadsList:
>
>  #SOME WORK DONE Figure out what to do about "ri" integration. Dave
>    is open to modifying ri itself

I don't think you need feel misled; Chad's statement is inconsistent 
with what I said you you earlier: I _am_ open to suggestions from both 
the gems folks and the rpa folks on things that would make integration 
with their projects easier. Right now, the gems folks appear not to 
need anything extra (I chatted with Chad about this for a while), but 
if they change their minds, I'll listen. Similarly if the rpa folks 
want new features, they just need to ask.

My only constraint is that any change we make shouldn't hurt rdoc/ri in 
general. The major stumbling block to all of the packaging systems that 
I see is handling installed packages that extend existing classes. 
These work fine on installation, but I don't know how to handle the 
uninstall, as stuff from the package may have been added to preexisting 
descriptions.

Cheers

Dave