From: Lloyd Zusman Date: 2005-11-20T09:14:45+09:00 Subject: Re: An alternative to Gems Austin Ziegler writes: > On 11/19/05, Trans wrote: >> >> [ ... ] >> >> So I'd like to know if others would be in support of this approach as I >> have already written a system to do exactly this. The system deals with >> all the details that arise doding this and adds some additional >> benefits, but the above is heart of the matter. The system is nearly >> ready for release. I am down to completing thread safety and >> solidifying the exact require interface that will support it. >> >> So what do you think? Anything you'd like me to clarify? Is there >> support out there for pursuing this approach? > > Yeah -- if you really want to propose an alternative, code it. No, > really. Sit down and code it out. Start finding out what the problems > with your approach would be. I'm *really* tired of people being lazy > backseat drivers to the problems that the RubyGems team has *solved*. > If you don't like what RubyGems does, provide something else as a > reasonable alternative. > > Otherwise, STFU. Please. I'm not going to get involved in this discussion other than to make one small point: Trans _has_ coded up an alternative. Re-read his paragraph above (the one which starts with the words "So I'd like to know ..."). -- Lloyd Zusman ljz@asfast.com God bless you.