From: Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Date: 2007-01-11T00:15:45+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Tattle - The Ruby Census

On Jan 9, 2007, at 13:03, Ben Bleything wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Eric Hodel wrote:
>>> Rake is useful for more than just gem deployment.
>>
>> Only if you are also developing.  If you're just using libraries, it
>> is useless.
>
> Not true.  I need rake to work with Rails, even though I'm not  
> doing any
> development on the Rails libraries.  If it were packaged with Hoe, I'd
> need to install hoe, but I'd never actually use the Hoe libraries  
> again.

Bad example.  Its required by rails:

$ gem dep rails --version=1.1.6
Gem rails-1.1.6
   rake (>= 0.7.1)
[...]

>>> I shouldn't need to install the rubyforge gem to install someone
>>> else's library, but if they packaged it with hoe, I'm forced to.
>>> This doesn't make sense.
>>
>> Same for rake, but nobody complains.
>
> Not true at all:
>
> [...]

I thought this thread was about [hoe packaged project] requires hoe/ 
rubyforge.  In that vein I've not seen a thread about [hoe packaged  
project] requires rake (or hoe/rubyforge/rake).  Why is that?

I think the real complaint is that currently RubyGems has no way to  
distinguish between build-time dependencies and run-time  
dependencies.  Hoe has the option of marking itself as dependent upon  
what it needs or creating broken gems (even if only for a small  
population).  I don't like the latter so I'm left with the former.

Directing complaints at Hoe is the wrong target.  Directing feature  
requests and/or patches at RubyGems is the right target.

-- 
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!