On 10/13/05, Hugh Sasse <hgs / dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
> > ".gem files should always be considered 'binary releases' in that
> > they're provided for runtime use, not for creating packages.  If
> > people want to create a package out of a project, they should seek out
> > a tarball or SCM access.  If a project releases .gem files only and
> > provides no SCM access, the (re)packager should bug the author about
> > this instead of complaining that .gem files aren't everything they
> > want."  Discuss.
>
> Basically against making life more difficult for repackagers,
> because :
>
>   it hinders the uptake of ruby (<- library dependency probs)
>   it generates heat and little light on the lists

I can't argue with the second one :)  The first depends on how well
.gem *can* work with other package(r)s, not how hard it tries.

>   Authors could do without being bugged.

Authors can release tarballs and gems simultaneously with Rake very easily.

>   If gems make more work for authors due to repackage-pestering,
>     people could well say "stuff the gems" -> back to square 0.

Again, tarballs.

I think the point still needs a lot of arguing :)

Gavin