From: Mark Sparshatt <msparshatt@...>
Date: 2004-05-01T04:50:43+09:00
Subject: Re: Opportunities and pitfalls; was "Introducing myself - Sascha Ebach"

Mark Hubbart wrote:

>
> On Apr 30, 2004, at 11:57 AM, Curt Hibbs wrote:
>
>>> Anyone want to help with that? :) I need to get on the stick and
>>> produce something on that.
>>
>>
>> You should consider joining existing projects that are already 
>> working on
>> these problems.
>>
>> For example, the RubyGems project is all about packaging up Ruby 
>> libraries
>> and applications and installing them from remote or local 
>> repositories in a
>> manner that is dead simple. It can install packages that are pure Ruby,
>> binary Ruby extensions, and it can build and install extensions from 
>> source.
>
>
> This is good for ruby extensions... I eagerly await the point in time 
> where gems are given the same status as other installed libraries, and 
> require_gem goes away. I can see nothing but good stuff up ahead for 
> rubygems. :) But that isn't what I was talking about: rubygems will be 
> nice for *after* you get things installed. I want people to be able to 
> package up their own ruby 'distro', including the best tools and their 
> dependencies.
>
>> Then there is the Ruby Installer project. This project is all about 
>> creating
>> self-installing pre-packaged Ruby runtimes that include Ruby, useful 
>> tools,
>> and best-of-breed libraries. At the moment it only includes an 
>> installer for
>> Windows, but I'd like to expand this to include other platforms (we just
>> need some interested Rubyists to sign up to work on the other 
>> platforms).
>
>
> Well, I had heard about the *Windows* Installer project, but I hadn't 
> heard of the *Ruby* installer project. Since the project you mention 
> seems to want a cross-platform solution, I'll check it out. It sounds 
> like maybe they have already done a good portion of the work I saw as 
> necessary to a packaging project.
>
>
>> And there is the wxRuby project (since you mentioned wxWidgets), that is
>> providing Ruby bindings to wxWidgets. In binary versions, includes a
>> pre-built wxWidgets binary along with the Ruby wrappers. See:
>
>
> I have that installed :) I was very impressed by how nicely packaged 
> it was.
>
>> The reason I point all of this out is because all of these projects 
>> rely on
>> volunteers like you and me to make progress. And, obviously, we can 
>> do a lot
>> more if we work together rather than duplicate efforts.
>
>
> Of course! Thank you for pointing these out; I'll definitely be 
> checking out he Ruby Installer project, and seeing if it's extensible 
> enough for my ideas, or if it can be made extensible enough.
>
> I think that this is an example of another need for the ruby 
> community, which I pointed out in my previous message. We have 
> RubyForge, a centralized project management site;  We have RAA, a 
> centralized software/library trove; we also have rubygems, a (soon to 
> be) centralized source for installation of libraries and applications. 
> But we don't have a place yet for categorizing what libraries are 
> needed, what libraries need help, proposing new library ideas, etc...
>
> For example: Just recently there was a long discussion on this list 
> about a unified, simplified, cross-toolkit gui language. Someone could 
> use that library to build their gui, then add a couple lines to 
> determine which gui would end up being used. The discussion went on 
> for a while, but I never found out if anything came of it.
>
> If we had a site like I described, anyone interested in GUI toolkits 
> would go to the site, and look under that category; see what other 
> people had been talking about on message boards, see proposed ideas, 
> etc... all in one place. It could be integrated with RAA and RubyForge 
> (once it matured somewhat) so that it would make it a simple thing to 
> go from conception to implementation, while gathering as many 
> interested people as possible. It could help people who want to help, 
> but aren't as advanced, to find projects that they are interested in 
> helping with.
>
> I realize that this is a large idea; but I wonder what other people 
> would think about setting something like that up. Am I missing 
> something? Are there existing methods that would be as good or better? 
> Do we just need to publicize certain ways of doing things?
>
What you're suggesting here sounds a lot like the ruby-garden Wiki - 
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby

Is that the sort of thing you're after?

--
Mark Sparshatt