From: Kristof Bastiaensen <kristof@...>
Date: 2005-01-16T22:56:13+09:00
Subject: Re: Bug#290705: ruby: Ruby is completly vivisected.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:48:48 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> Not at all. As I have pointed out in my original message that was kindly
> copied to the Debian bug list, ri is *more* than just documentation. It is
> the set of programs and libraries which comprise ri at the command-line
> and behind the command-line. If I were to write a program that used ri (or
> rdoc) and someone wanted to use it, it wouldn't work on most folks's
> Debian installs -- because of the idiotic way that the Debian packages
> have been split up.

Ok, I see the problem.

> 
> The core libraries shouldn't be vivisected this way (that's a great way of
> saying it, Trevor). If you want to provide the ri documentation separate,
> okay -- I'll think you're being silly, but don't you *dare* pretend to
> know how to package the core libraries better than the people who use the
> lanaguage every day and the people who define the language.

I don't know if that was adressed to me, but don't get me wrong.  All
I was saying that it is a good thing to seperate the packages that are
only needed for developing Ruby-code.  If ri-code is needed for a working
system then it should be surely installed.  But the ri data files
however should not be.  They will not be used by anyone who just want
to run a Ruby-application, without ever wanting to program in Ruby
(such people do exist).

> 
> As a perfect example, the RubyGems mailing list has gotten at least three
> reports of being unable to use RubyGems on Debian because libzlib-ruby
> hasn't been installed because they installed what seemed most sensible
> (ruby18). Oops. This is simply inexcusable.
> 
> Not only that, a few megs of disk space is nothing.

It all adds up.  A few megs for Python, a few megs for Perl, a few
megs for *insert obscure language or library here*.  Really, it
matters when everyone thinks like this.

Kristof