From: Chad Fowler Date: 2005-03-05T03:34:00+09:00 Subject: Re: RAA Status & The Problem with Ruby On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 01:50:00 +0900, Ben Giddings wrote: > 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. > I'm not really suggesting that this is a great final solution, but it's one possible way to do it now. If we really wanted to get serious about a QA'd gem repository, it would make sense to add functionality for it (probably). There's also the current capability to specify a different gem source when doing an installation, so you could put things in a special place and do (for example): $ gem install -s http://qualitystuff.myserver.net somelibrary > Anyhow, if you guys are working to make it happen, I'll prepare my happy > dance of joy. Don't dance yet, but if you're interested in helping to work to make it happen, we'll be supportive. :) -- Chad Fowler http://chadfowler.com http://rubycentral.org http://rubygarden.org http://rubygems.rubyforge.org (over 100,000 gems served!)