From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2007-01-11T09:16:36+09:00 Subject: Re: Tattle - The Ruby Census On 1/10/07, Tim Pease wrote: > On 1/10/07, Nathaniel Talbott wrote: > > On 1/10/07, Christian Neukirchen wrote: > > > It is easy to write a rakefile that downgrades itself. Possible gem > > > hackers will have hoe installed anyway, there is no need to declare > > > this dependency. > > > > Yes, but in order for the Rakefile to do *anything*, rake would have > > to be installed, which it wouldn't necessarily be unless Hoe is a > > dependency. > > > > FYI, I originally stripped the hoe dependency from cooloptions, and > > have since added it back after further consideration. I'd love to have > > development dependencies separated out from runtime dependencies, but > > until then, the hoe stays in. > > > > A thought: if code that's not used at runtime is such an issue, > > shouldn't we be stripping tests, Rakefiles and the like from our > > libraries before gem'ing them? I don't see the difference between > > those files and the hoe dependency. > My gems do not have the Rakefile included, nor do they depend on Hoe / > RubyForge gems even though I use them and think they are great. Tests > I keep because they can be run from the gem, and it's a nice check if > something goes awry. > When we build and deploy our C++ applications here at work, we do not > distribute the Makefiles or any of our supporting scripts. Same > analogy applies to the Rakefiles and supporting gems. If your C++ application is distributed as source for others to build, you do. Conisder it this way: if having full idempotency makes it that much easier for repackagers to consider using something that is (otherwise) only available as a gem, is it a bad thing? And yes, I know my opinion on downstream repackagers; by and large, it hasn't changed. -austin -- Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/ * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/ * austin@zieglers.ca