From: ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 2002-12-06T03:55:03+09:00
Subject: Re: install.rb

In article <1039100729.1115.34.camel@spinoza>,
Anders Bengtsson  <ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se> wrote:
>
>>    ruby install.rb config
>>    ruby install.rb setup
>>    ruby install.rb install
>
>I'll have to join Daniel Carrera in complaining. What is really the
>point of this multi-step procedure?

Exactly my gripe as well!  Why can't the install script do the 
config, setup, install itself so we only have to run one command instead 
of three?

>
>* Of all the packages using it, how many even *need* configuration?
>* Why the middle step with setup, can't this be done in either config or
>install?
>* The required order of these steps is not obvious to the user.
>* When they break I've found it hard to find out why.
>
>I think these install scripts are the only Ruby-related thing I have so
>far cursed out loud at while using. :)

Add to this the fact that a lot of folks roll their own install.rb script 
that does things a little differently which compounds the problem.  I 
think we need a more 'standardized' install methodology and whatever 
approach is chosen should be included in the standard Ruby installation. 
(currently you have to download setup.rb/install.rb from the RAA)

Phil
-- 
"Or perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts?" 
Amy Weiss (accusing theregister.co.uk of engaging in 'tabloid journalism')
Senior VP, Communications
Recording Industry Association of America