On Oct 26, 2007, at 2:49 PM, Tim Pease wrote:

> On 10/26/07, Giles Bowkett <gilesb / gmail.com> wrote:
>>> a system that leverages open source
>>> *without* the ability to follow the rapidly moving pace of the
>>> packages' development has complete missed one of the main  
>>> features of
>>> open source and is, for me and my clients, utterly useless -
>>> inability to keep up with head or, at least, do that via a package
>>> manager renders *open* source to be effectively *closed*
>>
>> we're going to have to manually update our Ruby installs just like we
>> had to last time **anyway**, because Ruby will probably change again
>> before OS X does. the "gem server" (not gem_server any more) example
>> illustrates exactly that problem, because it's already happened - the
>> new gems is in pre-release already.
>>
>
> Hmmm, why not provide the XCode project files so that we can create
> our own Ruby framework. I assume the framework in a user's Library
> folder would supersede the System folder.  Just a thought.
>
> TwP
>
Arguably it should all be part of  software management system.
Though MacPorts should not be the only option.
It is a bit short sighted in some regards, but we do have to  
acknowledge that as an operating system/platform it needs to have a  
stable & reliable official release to develop around, as well.
There are indeed both the bleeding edge people and the stable/ 
reliable/predictable people. Both camps have valid merits.
Personally, I was (unrealisticallly) hoping for Ruby 2.0 & Rails 2.0  
all rolled up together in the new OS X...