Austin Ziegler schrieb:
> On 1/10/07, Tim Pease <tim.pease / gmail.com> wrote:
>> When we build and deploy our C++ applications here at work, we do not
>> distribute the Makefiles or any of our supporting scripts.  Same
>> analogy applies to the Rakefiles and supporting gems.
> 
> If your C++ application is distributed as source for others to build,
> you do. Conisder it this way: if having full idempotency makes it that
> much easier for repackagers to consider using something that is
> (otherwise) only available as a gem, is it a bad thing?

When you ship your application with Makefiles, you sure don't ship it 
with make and gcc and all the other things that are required to 
*execute* the Makefile, do you?

The same applies here: I don't mind if gems are shipped with rakefiles, 
even rakefiles which depend on hoe. But why do you think you need to 
ship everything needed to execute those rakefiles? As I have proved with 
the tattle gem, they absolutely aren't needed to use tattle.

So: can any gem developer who consciously includes hoe as a dependency, 
explain to me what this allows the gem *user* to do what he couldn't do 
otherwise?

Regards,
Pit