On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:56:10 +0900, Thursday
<nospam / nospam.nospam.nospam.nospam.org> wrote:
> Thursday wrote:
> > Much thanks for the feedback.
> >
> > I think in this instance, another challenge is that the ruby source
> > build provides more than the ruby1.8 package.  Just one example being
> > libzlib-ruby1.8.
> oops

> ruby1.8 provides these (incliding libzlib-ruby1.8):

> ri1.8, ruby1.8-dev, libsdbm-ruby1.8, libtcltk-ruby1.8, ruby1.8,
> libruby1.8, libsyslog-ruby1.8, libdl-ruby1.8, libstrscan-ruby1.8,
> irb1.8, libdbm-ruby1.8, libiconv-ruby1.8, libzlib-ruby1.8,
> libtk-ruby1.8, libreadline-ruby1.8, libxmlrpc-ruby1.8, libyaml-ruby1.8,
> libruby1.8-dbg, rdoc1.8, libwebrick-ruby1.8, libtest-unit-ruby1.8,
> libpty-ruby1.8, libracc-runtime-ruby1.8, libgdbm-ruby1.8,
> librexml-ruby1.8, libbigdecimal-ruby1.8, ruby1.8-examples,
> ruby1.8-elisp, libsoap-ruby1.8, libdrb-ruby1.8, libcurses-ruby1.8,
> liberb-ruby1.8, libopenssl-ruby1.8

And just *what* excuse do the Debian maintainers give for this
inexcusable mess that they've made of Ruby? With perhaps the exception
of ruby1.8-examples, ruby1.8-elisp, and *maybe* ruby1.8-dev and
libruby1.8-dbg (I don't know what's in those), the rest off this stuff
is part of Ruby's core as defined by Matz. If 'ri' isn't installed
(not necessarily the data files, because ri represents program
capabilities, too), then any system without it doesn't actually have
Ruby.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca