-- Xa+u8++603Upx8fuGbT Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-zwlXnga+q9fS8dfqw54T" -- wlXnga+q9fS8dfqw54T Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:51 +0900, Logan Capaldo wrote: > OTOH, I do believe that user applications probably should not be > distributed as gems, or at least not only as gems. But that's another > topic, with other reasoning. That's the only topic of any imporantance here. Applications depend on libraries. Debian (or anyone else) cannot track and meet depends if the libraries are _only_ available as Gems. All that they are asking for is that both methods be equally maintained. -- wlXnga+q9fS8dfqw54T Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.10.1"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:51 +0900, Logan Capaldo wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> <FONT COLOR="#000000">OTOH, I do believe that user applications probably should not be </FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">distributed as gems, or at least not only as gems. But that's another </FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">topic, with other reasoning.</FONT> </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> That's the only topic of any imporantance here. Applications depend on libraries. Debian (or anyone else) cannot track and meet depends if the libraries are _only_ available as Gems. All that they are asking for is that both methods be equally maintained. </BODY> </HTML> -- wlXnga+q9fS8dfqw54T-- -- Xa+u8++603Upx8fuGbT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEX48NtSqjk42zvwkRAqb/AJ4iBN1Va+y2c4WCYzViBCL29692ngCgsXrl KUwygqjmRLuVuZ9S0ioS2O0peU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Xa+u8++603Upx8fuGbT--