--
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--