From: matt <matt@...>
Date: 2007-01-14T04:56:49+09:00
Subject: Re: A Heartfelt Plea for a Universal Open Source Package	Management System

On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 04:43 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, matt wrote:
> 
> >> Under the same question, why can't a gem be a DEB, or why can't a perl
> >> package be a GEM, or a gem a perl package, or an R package, or a port?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Chris Carter
> >> concentrationstudios.com
> >> brynmawrcs.com
> >>
> >
> > The point was that there be a universal packaging system. I don't think
> > anyone would mind using Baltar's QQQ packing system if it was universal,
> > open source, extensible, and worked as advertised.
> >
> > I'm all for a universal packaging system. But I'll settle just for a
> > universal reusable Ruby system.
> > Gems, Plugins, Engines, Components ... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ?
> 
> Plugins, engines, and components are Rails add-ons.  They don't
> pertain to the matter of packaging and distributing Ruby libraries and
> applications in general.
> 
> 
> David
> 

That was my point exactly!  Rails is nothing more than an extension of
Ruby via Gems packaging, but now there are more choices (or should I say
confusions), that break away from universality.  I know this is a Ruby
list and not Rails, so I'll break with this:  The use of a universal
packaging system would flow out to any extensions of the language as
well, so a if Gems was the way to go, then, Rails would have to as well
(in a perfect, utopian, no more advancement, socialistic kind of way),
but one that would still fit the bill of the original topic.

Matt