From: Eivind Eklund Date: 2005-10-05T21:31:59+09:00 Subject: Re: Gems is over engineered On 10/4/05, Trans wrote: > Eivind Eklund wrote: > > Until we do, however, I think that having Ruby implemented in a way > > that makes it possible to follow the standards reasonably well is > > necessary. > > > > And until I stop hearing complaints that it's impossible to package > > Rails and RailsGen properly (which I last heard from a new repackager > > a few days ago), I won't think this problem is solved. > > Actually that's interesting. Perhaps the authors of the packages > themselves should have some sort of specfile to designate information > about their files which another build tool could use to build the > layout for particular distribution's needs. So the build tool could > have different adapters, FHS adaptor, Gentoo Adapter, Windows > Adaptor... not sure how the specfile mihgt look though. This is the model I've been proposing to Austin. We're still discussing if it is reasonable, and details. > > > Though I really wonder how many people do such a thing. > > > > Not many for each particular case. The ones that do are often very > > much power users, however, and contribute disproportionally to the > > system, and additionally there is a much larger number that don't use > > it, yet feel more comfortable with the system because it's there in > > case they need it. > > That makes sense. Though I imagine, even in their case some of it is > overkill. Plus consider that even if it is all quite rational, if it is > just too complex how effective is it gogin to be anyway? Exactly. Some parts are almost certainly overkill, and it's just necessary to find out what parts. Eivind.