From: Kevin Brown <blargity@...>
Date: 2005-10-03T01:32:40+09:00
Subject: Re: why can't Ruby load .gem files directly?

[*snip*]

On Sunday 02 October 2005 10:21, Corey Lawson wrote:
> It sounds like a debian user problem, not a Ruby user problem. I think most
> Ruby people (who probably are not running ruby on Debian) want Ruby to work
> like...Ruby, whether it's on a Mac, Windows, RedHat, Debian, Slolaris,
> whatever. Has a similar beef been made about Java on Debian? (Why must Java
> apps be deployed as .jar, .ear, war, whatever. Can't they pick just one and
> make it work with apt-get?).

It's both, because gems should be flexible enough to do both, especially since 
doing so provides no particular problems to either group.  That way, if my 
mom wants to install a gem, she uses the debian package, and if I want to, I 
do it the 'real' way.

Ultimately, if this results in an internet-schlong-waving-contest, everyone 
loses.  Debian also has the option of having a package type that includes a 
wget and then a gem-install, but this is very contrary to the fact that once 
you download the .deb package, you HAVE the software and that's IT.  
Introducing nasty hacks like above mentioned are not good for Debian, and 
that's why the debate is currently raging.

Also note that it's not just a Debian problem, but a problem of anyone who 
uses .debs, including Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Mephis, and a whole host of other 
distros.