From: Chad Fowler <chadfowler@...>
Date: 2004-08-22T09:27:53+09:00
Subject: Re: Package requests for the prelim. Ruby Production Archive

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 05:20:28 +0900, Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/21/04 3:44 PM, "Mauricio Fern�ndez" <batsman.geo@yahoo.com> 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:
> 
> You were misled?  This is just some notes that I typed up relayed from Chad
> on some final things we wanted to get done...not a general communications to
> the broader community.  No problem with reading it obviously but don't take
> it as a message. The below mentioned item says Dave is open to changing
> ri...in general...based on community feedback...he always has been.  We can
> obviously add our own version of ri, but we did not like the idea.  Don't
> take it personally :-)
> 
> 

Right.  This wasn't meant to be a dig.  ri-gems and ri-rpa are
obviously suboptimal solutions.  Uninstall remains an issue, but we
may be willing to just make that compromise.  After all, it's an
inherent (and IMO acceptable) limitation of the way ri works right
now.  A major reason we don't think/hear about it much is that there
is no obvious, clean way to uninstall libraries when not using a
system like RubyGems or RPA-base.

As for ambition, don't be so quick to judge.  Wait until this time
next year.... ;)