From: james_b@...
Date: 2003-04-07T11:00:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Call for standardized package installation procedure

> From: Hal E. Fulton [mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com]
> I'll address these issues just from
> my own point of view.
> 
> > I'd be interested to hear from folks as to:
> >    a) Why they do not include an installation script
> 
> First, I don't see the need for an install
> script if it's just a single file foo.rb
> which you do a require() on.

I'm not so sure that every Ruby newbie knows where 
to put such files. Seems so simple to have a script 
that locates your site_ruby dir for you and copies 
it over, unless there is a name conflict.  

Here's code that writes an install.rb script if all
you need is to copy a file to the site_dir:

#------------------------ begin --------------
#!/usr/local/bin/ruby


src = %q<#!/usr/local/bin/ruby

require 'rbconfig'
require 'ftools'

include Config

class Installer
  def self.copy_unless_exists( f)
    version = CONFIG["MAJOR"]+"."+CONFIG["MINOR"]
    libdir = File.join(CONFIG["libdir"], "ruby", version)
    sitedir = CONFIG["sitedir"] || File.join($libdir, "site_ruby")

    put_to = "#{sitedir}/#{f}"
    puts "Copying #{f} to #{put_to}"
    if File.exist? put_to
      puts "Trouble! #{put_to} already exists!"
    else
      begin
        File::install( f, File.join(sitedir, f), 0755, true)
        puts "All done.  Go be happy."
      rescue Exception
        puts  "There was a problem copying the file: #{$!}"
      end
    end
  end
end >

if ARGV[0]
  File.open( "install.rb", "w"){ |f| 
    f.print "#{src}\n\n"
    f.print "Installer.copy_unless_exists '#{ARGV[0].to_s}'"
  }
else
  puts 'You need to give the name of the source file.'
end

#------------------ end ---------------------


You can run it on itself if you want an installer for it :)


>
> >    b) Why they do not list their code in the RAA at all (but do make it
> available
> >        from, say, SourceForge or a personal home page)
> 
 ...

> But basically, I personally don't want to
> put anything in the RAA until it is in
> fairly good shape. (No flames intended
> toward those who think otherwise.) I don't
> like to see an interesting new item in
> the RAA and then see "Version 0.001 -
> pre-pre-alpha - Unstable - No real features -
> Very buggy" and so on.

Makes me think of the numerous projects on SourceForge
that list no files, no docs, one developer. 

Some people might be inclined to join an existing project 
rather than  start their own if they know alpha code exists.   
I wonder if there should be some sort of alpha code half-life 
feature in RAA, such that if an entry is listed as alpha 
for longer than some period of time, it gets deleted and 
the owner informed by E-mail.


James

> 
> Hal
> 
> 
>