From: Aredridel <aredridel@...>
Date: 2005-07-07T01:40:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby under Cygwin problems

On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 00:46 +0900, Chad Fowler wrote:
> On 7/6/05, Aredridel <aredridel@nbtsc.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 23:18 +0900, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> > > Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > i don't have a problem with writing "require 'rubygems'" on the first
> > > > line. I wouldn't add a rescue clause as i think it's a valid option to
> > > > force a user to have rubygems installed as some of the requirements of
> > > > your library.
> > >
> > > If you decide to go this way, please make sure you also publish your
> > > software as a gem only, so they won't even have the slightest chance
> > > to have a look at the code and determine whether it would be
> > > reasonable to dig it out.
> > 
> > Heartily, heartily seconded. That way, if someone who works on a linux
> > distro like Fedora, PLD or Debian should want to package software that
> > uses your library, or to package your library, so that it "Just works"
> > for their users, they'll give up. That way nobody accidentally makes it
> > easy to install.
> > 
> > </snark>
> > 
> >
> 
> What is your _suggestion_?  Does anyone have anything productive to add?

Sorry for the snark. Mostly, release a tarball without a dependency on
gems -- that helps a lot. Most linux distros use the FHS standard, so
being able to look for files in the locations it lays out is a Good
Thing. 

On a development-of-gems perspective having gems be able to install into
FHS locations would rock.

Ari