From: Ben Bleything Date: 2007-01-11T03:17:02+09:00 Subject: Re: [ANN] Tattle - The Ruby Census On Thu, Jan 11, 2007, Eric Hodel wrote: > >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: No, it's exactly the right example. As I said above, rake is required to *use* rails. For instance, to migrate the database. Not a library development issue. > 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? The problem is Hoe, though. If it wasn't packaged with Hoe, it wouldn't require Hoe. Hoe requires Rake. If Hoe didn't force gems it creates to install Hoe, Rake wouldn't be a dependency. > 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. I agree with you here, for the most part. I think it's rare that people who are doing development on a gem are actually going to have installed it via gem, as opposed to checking it out of source control. That makes your "broken" population very small. > Directing complaints at Hoe is the wrong target. Directing feature > requests and/or patches at RubyGems is the right target. I disagree here. In my opinion (and the opinion of others, apparently) Hoe is doing something that is unnecessary. Your opinion is clearly different. Mind you, I'm not really complaining, and I don't think anyone else is either. Hoe does something that struck people as strange, and asked about it. That's when people started getting defensive. Ben