Eivind Eklund wrote:

>>>Yes, I don't know the details of the current controversy (ie. why
>>>Debian is having a problem packaging gems)
>>>      
>>>
>>Neither do I. Are they trying to repackage gems as... err.. whatever the
>>apt-get file extension is? If so, why?
>>    
>>
>They're trying to repackage software that the author assume to be
>Gem-distributed as Debian packages (.deb, IIRC).  The reason for this
>is simple: To provide Ruby software on Debian for Debian users in the
>way Debian users are used to.  These users do not particularly care
>about Ruby, and definately do not want to have to know one packaging
>system for handling Ruby software, and another for handling Perl, and
>another for handling Java, and another for handling Haskell, and
>another for handling Python, and another way for handling C code, and
>...
>  
>
Okay (and thanks for the reply). That's weird. If they don't paticularly 
care about Ruby, what are they doing installing Ruby gems (usually 
libraries)? If they're trying to install an application that happens to 
be written in Ruby, then does it not suffice for the .deb to list ruby 
and rubygems as dependences, and then for the install step to be `gem 
install the-app-dependencies` or whatever?

Devin