Trans wrote:

> 
> Long time Rubyists still include setup.rb in there projects, they know
> doing so facilitates distribution managers in repackaging --most
> notably .deb's.
> 
> But I wonder if it's time to take the next step and forgo setup.rb and
> site_ruby altogether. To throw down a gauntlet to the old FHS schools,
> that it's time for them to adapt, rather then the other way around.
> 
>

Thank you so very much for finally addressing this which has caused me 
so many sleepless nights.  Those "long time Rubyists" who hold onto 
their "setup.rb" tighter than their macbooks think they rule the world 
and if we don't stand up to them now then who will???

When I compile my own gems by running ruby setup.rb I get a sour taste 
in my mouth that lasts for days and my hands feel dirty no matter how 
many times I try to wash the filth away.

It has lead me to monkey patch my test suite and rename all my methods 
commence_the_initialization_of_the_test_cases() which I find much better 
than the default setup() which ofcourse reminds me of setup.rb

I will gladly join your campaign and fight if there is at least a chance 
that I can spare another developer from the travesty of having to type 
"ruby setup.rb".. ohh the horror of it!

ilan
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.