From: Kevin Brown <blargity@...>
Date: 2005-10-03T01:47:27+09:00
Subject: Re: why can't Ruby load .gem files directly?

On Sunday 02 October 2005 10:42, Devin Mullins wrote:
> Eivind Eklund wrote:
> >>>Yes, I don't know the details of the current controversy (ie. why
> >>>Debian is having a problem packaging gems)
> >>
> >>Neither do I. Are they trying to repackage gems as... err.. whatever the
> >>apt-get file extension is? If so, why?
> >
> >They're trying to repackage software that the author assume to be
> >Gem-distributed as Debian packages (.deb, IIRC).  The reason for this
> >is simple: To provide Ruby software on Debian for Debian users in the
> >way Debian users are used to.  These users do not particularly care
> >about Ruby, and definately do not want to have to know one packaging
> >system for handling Ruby software, and another for handling Perl, and
> >another for handling Java, and another for handling Haskell, and
> >another for handling Python, and another way for handling C code, and
> >...
>
> Okay (and thanks for the reply). That's weird. If they don't paticularly
> care about Ruby, what are they doing installing Ruby gems (usually
> libraries)? If they're trying to install an application that happens to
> be written in Ruby, then does it not suffice for the .deb to list ruby
> and rubygems as dependences, and then for the install step to be `gem
> install the-app-dependencies` or whatever?

Nope, because in other debian-ish situations with libraries (be they written 
in C and compiled) you can put them in and pull them out seperate of the 
application by using apt-get, which makes a LOT of sense.

What would happen when you uninstall the program if packaged as you mention?  
You can't remove the gems, and you can't really leave them there either...

> Devin