From: Ben Giddings <bg-rubytalk@...>
Date: 2005-03-05T01:50:00+09:00
Subject: Re: RAA Status & The Problem with Ruby

Chad Fowler wrote:
> Definitely.  There has been much discussion about this.  Search
> ruby-talk for an exhausting several hours of reading :)  You wouldn't
> really need to even do the stable/unstable thing.  It would be
> possible to create a super-gem ("gems-quality-assured" or something)
> that has all of the known good versions as dependencies.  That would
> at least get the good ones on your system.  If you _only_ installed
> the super-gem, you would in effect have a full local installation of
> someone's known-good list.  This could be done without any changes to
> RubyGems at all.   What it _wouldn't_ give you is the ability to patch
> the libraries, which the RPA people were doing with some of the libs
> they were touching.  You'd have to depend on the traditional
> send-patch-and-wait method of getting patches into a library.

Except as time goes on, that list might get huge, and you might be 
installing thousands of packages.

Tagging things as stable/unstable would allow you to install the stable 
version of the libs you need, and not to install things you don't (yet) 
need.

Anyhow, if you guys are working to make it happen, I'll prepare my happy 
dance of joy.

Ben