Hello Christian,

CN> And if there was a tar.gz not depending rubygems, I could just grab it
CN> and look into it.  If you automate your builds and shipping anyway,
CN> come on, *this* can't be that hard to do.

If they add the path by hand to the RUBYLIB environment variable they
can still do so and try it out. I really like this much better. Then
you don't use the rubygems features of managing multiple version but
only the package manager features.

CN> In case not everyone has noticed: There are people that don't want to
CN> use Rubygems and therefore don't have it installed.

>> The only problem comes when the install of a gem terminates with an
>> error, like not being able to compile a binary extension. But as i
>> pointed out before binary extensions are still a general problem for
>> rubygems.

CN> And not the only one, unfortunately...

Yes, but i think the idea is to not provide an alternative. IMHO the
way we should go is to enforce the use of rubygems as a primary
solution and so to force development on rubygems, its not that much
work that must be done, but it must be done sooner or later.

I think this is the way you get the best technology - unfortunately
it is not popular for many open source developers.

Rubygems could be a killer feature for ruby, so we should use it.


-- 
 Best regards,                        emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
 Lothar Scholz                        http://www.ruby-ide.com
 CTO Scriptolutions                   Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's