From: Aredridel Date: 2003-05-07T02:37:41+09:00 Subject: Re: A wishlist for a "Ruby Standard Library" > 1. I do favor a "relatively lean and mean" Ruby installation. > Some of the "extras" should be included, but most should not. I agree here -- have a way to strip the distribution to minimal size, for a project/area where that's neccesary. In PHP, that's with --disable=all to ./configure; to Ruby, that might be downloading a small package or a similar situation as PHP. > 2. I do also think that installation should be quick and > painless and automated. raa-install is a step in the right > direction. I haven't looked at other alternatives. Definately -- though one nightmarish thing on a system that's package-managed is running a second, more limited package manager for a subset of the packages. By this, I mean that I'd rather have RPM manage my perl modules than CPAN (and thankfully, PLD provides a huge part of CPAN as RPMs, through no small effort of the distributors); Similarly with Python, Ruby and other languages. It makes system administration an order of magnitude easier when you can rely on the system package manager for everything. > 3. I also think that the contents of the RAA should be kept > on the RAA site itself, instead of (in addition to?) keeping > pointers to other sites. Yes. And mirrors. (And I'm not talking about emulating prdownloads.sourceforge.net here, which is the /worst/ way to do it) > 4. To merge with the "PHP is popular" thread: I think it > might be a good idea to make a "Ruby/Web" installation > (which would be a "fat" installation). This would include > eruby, REXML, and who knows what else. Yes! Perhaps a small, well-maintained set of fat distros: "Huge" (GUI + Web + everything), "Web" (XML, templating, eruby, mod_ruby), "GUI" (FXRuby), and "core" (Just the small, standard library.) It really shouldn't be that much of a maintenance nightmare, assuming one has learned some of the lessons that package managers have taught under linux in the last five years...