From: Corey Lawson Date: 2005-10-03T09:46:17+09:00 Subject: Re: why can't Ruby load .gem files directly? ------=_Part_1166_17001202.1128300374972 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 10/2/05, Brian Schr=F6der wrote: > > On 02/10/05, 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?). > > > > If it is a debian user problem that is sad, but I have to say that I > try to avoid any libraries that are not packed as a deb. I do not have > gems installed because the duality of the gem and the debian system is > annoying me. > > This may be just an anecdote, but a lot of libraries are loosing at > least me as a user. I have packaged deb's myself and I don't think it > is a very complicated process, so I wonder why it is difficult to go > from .gem to .deb? > > brian > > -- > http://ruby.brian-schroeder.de/ > > Stringed instrument chords: http://chordlist.brian-schroeder.de/ > > Well, is there an apt-get for every other OS/Debian besides Debian? Might a= s well be a Windows Ruby user being steamed for everything not being packaged as a .MSI file using the newest Windows Installer, because, well, everythin= g else comes packaged that way for Windows, so might as well be consistent, no? Again, it's possible to package Ruby libraries not as .gem, just like it is feasible to package a J2EE web app as something besides a .[jwe]ar, but in the context of the environments, it's just easier to deal with creating the .[jwe]ar files, and it's just easy enough to use gem to manage gem files. ------=_Part_1166_17001202.1128300374972--