From: Aredridel <aredridel@...>
Date: 2004-10-15T08:27:16+09:00
Subject: Re: To all people writing BBS on Rails: let's join forces

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:20:02 +0900, David Heinemeier Hansson
<david@loudthinking.com> wrote:
> > No thanks, I'm writing one in a framework without rails. The main
> > developer is reluctant to help package it for RPA.
> 
> This is completely false. I've instructed Mauricio on how I've done the
> packaging for GEMs, clarified the division between library and stubs,
> AND welcomed any patches to Rails that would make it easier to package
> for RPA (under the condition that it didn't disrupt the two other
> packages I'm maintaining for it myself).

It's on our todo lists -- It's just a particularly hard thing to
package "the right way" (complying with various distribution policies,
as well as RPA's policies)

Rails isn't exactly a library is part of the problem, and there's some
dependency on Gems even in the tarball version in the last release I
looked at. It's not that David (Addressing in the third person here,
pardon) is unwilling to make Rails packageable, it's that it's
somewhat unique in that it's neither app nor library per se. It's a
process, and at the moment, David's busy pushing for 1.0.

Mauricio keeps poking at Rails on occasion, but it's a moving target
because of the rapid development, and there's a lot on everyone's
plate. RPAs will come, but only when they're sure to work right out of
the package and work forever once installed.

It's not easy, but there's really no ill will here: just differing
opinions on what's most important, and what order things have to be
done in.

G'day, all.

Aredridel
PLD RPM Packager