From: Jeremy McAnally <jeremymcanally@...>
Date: 2007-01-11T05:16:25+09:00
Subject: Re: Definition of a Bikeshed Argument (Was: [ANN] Tattle - The Ruby Census)

I think one of the concerns is deploying these gems on production
boxes; if an exploit of some sort (God forbid) is found, that's
putting my box in danger.  I doubt these gems are in danger of
something like that, but I guess somehow they could be (i.e., flaw in
the rubyforge gem, somehow exploting rake to overwrite files...I don't
know).

For me, it's just a question of principle.  For example, I just built
a gem for something I've been working on.  It requires hoe because I
used hoe to build it, but it's a very simple library, and as such, my
users will never, ever need hoe (and some may not want it on their
system).  Why do I, as the one building the gem, not have the option
to exclude it?  Why not just generate a Rakefile and I'll include it
if it needs it; otherwise make a gemspec and build the gem and leave
hoe off the deps.

At least, that's how I would do it.  I understand if theres some sort
of other, technical reason far beyond my comprehension.

--Jeremy

On 1/10/07, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
> This argument (mbox format): 178,544 bytes
>
> rake-0.7.1.gem: 76,800 bytes
> rubyforge-0.4.0.gem: 28,160 bytes
> hoe-1.1.7.gem: 12,288 bytes
>
> total dependencies for hoe-packaged gems: 117,248 bytes
> hoe and rubyforge alone: 40,448 bytes
>
> So we've argued for 61,296 more bytes than it takes to download all
> three of a hoe packages dependencies.
>
> Or, you could have downloaded hoe and rubyforge 4.4 times in the
> amount of mail spent on this argument.
>
> --
> Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
>
> I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!
>
>
>


-- 
My free Ruby e-book:
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/book/

My blogs:
http://www.mrneighborly.com/
http://www.rubyinpractice.com/