From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2003-04-08T22:11:28+09:00
Subject: Re: Call for standardised package installation procedure

On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, 3:42:49 AM, Mauricio wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 02:34:26AM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:47:20 +0900, Tom Payne wrote:
>> > Dependencies are [should be] handled by the package management
>> > system. John, your wish has already come true on Gentoo and Debian
>> > systems :-)
>> 
>> Doesn't help those of us who choose not to use Gentoo or Debian. (I
>> use SuSE when I use Linux; I also use Windows XP.) Frankly, I don't
>> *want* the OS to manage my Ruby libraries; they're typically much
>> more lightweight than C libraries.

> As for me, I'd like the OS to manage everything, it does just great :-)
> [*] I guess we cannot *all* be happy... unless we provide an _optional_
> way to integrate the Ruby module installation into the system-dependent
> package management system.

> [*] yes, I use Debian ;)

Well, *I* prefer my OS to stick to managing hardware, processes, etc.
That's what it's for.  SuSE, RedHat, Debian users are all using the
same OS; they just run different applications.

Some people who are unduly smug about their choice of OS (certainly
no-one in mind from this group) would do well to remember this.

Back on track, though: I see very little benefit in using generic
lib/app management tools, as good as they are, to manage Ruby
libraries.  Ruby libraries are very nuanced things, and benefit from
the in-depth knowledge that Ruby has about itself and its
configuration.  Then there's the practical problem of all the
different installers for different distros etc.  People brush this
aside, but it's insurmountable, IMO.

apt-get and the like should be nothing more than models for what needs
to be achieved for Ruby library management.  I'm happy to be proven
wrong, though.  Is there are precedent?  Some Perlers love the CPAN
shell, others hate it, but does anyone use apt-get to install their
Perl modules?

Gavin