From: Jason Roelofs <jameskilton@...>
Date: 2007-05-08T04:14:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Gem-only releases

------=_Part_81089_11811817.1178565293130
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I really do not understand this stance against Rubygems. It seems to me that
the only problem they have with Gems is that there's no control over where
gems are installed. Do they have the same problem with Pear (PHP), CPAN
(Perl), and Packman (Python)?

Personally, while I like apt, I absolutely despise dealing with the debian
package repositories as packages are split up and spread out in the most
inane ways (you need ruby1.8, libruby1.8, libruby1.8-extras, and the related
-devel packages most of the time, vs emerge ruby / windows one-click
installer).

So I'm not going to worry too much about that post, and yeah, I'm curious as
to what the OP finds wrong with using gems.

Jason

On 5/5/07, Glen Pfeiffer <glen@thepfeiffers.net> wrote:
>
> On 05/04/2007 08:56 AM, Lyle Johnson wrote:
> > On 5/4/07, Marc Heiler <shevegen@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> >
> >> My point now is, though - please please please - consider to
> >> also release non-gem versions IF you do release a gem version
> >> of your library!
> >
> > I read through your post a couple of times and I still haven't
> > found the part where you explain why gems aren't getting the
> > job done, and why library authors should therefore provide
> > their libraries in non-gem formats.
>
> This may not be the OP's reason, but it does point out reasons
> why some people/projects do not want to use gems:
> http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html
>
> --
> Glen
>
>

------=_Part_81089_11811817.1178565293130--