On 7/6/05, Aredridel <aredridel / nbtsc.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 23:18 +0900, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> > Lothar Scholz <mailinglists / scriptolutions.com> writes:
> >
> > > i don't have a problem with writing "require 'rubygems'" on the first
> > > line. I wouldn't add a rescue clause as i think it's a valid option to
> > > force a user to have rubygems installed as some of the requirements of
> > > your library.
> >
> > If you decide to go this way, please make sure you also publish your
> > software as a gem only, so they won't even have the slightest chance
> > to have a look at the code and determine whether it would be
> > reasonable to dig it out.
> 
> Heartily, heartily seconded. That way, if someone who works on a linux
> distro like Fedora, PLD or Debian should want to package software that
> uses your library, or to package your library, so that it "Just works"
> for their users, they'll give up. That way nobody accidentally makes it
> easy to install.
> 
> </snark>
> 
>

What is your _suggestion_?  Does anyone have anything productive to add?
-- 
Chad Fowler
http://chadfowler.com
http://rubycentral.org 
http://rubygarden.org 
http://rubygems.rubyforge.org (over 500,000 gems served!)