Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Which parts of ruby which are currently split out would you like to see
> installed when the user installs ruby? For example, ruby ships a ruby
> emacs mode. Installing that would require adding a dependency on emacs,
> which doesn't sound reasonable.
> 
> Anyway, I've just added the following packages to the list of packages
> that are "suggested" when someone installs ruby: irb, rdoc, ri,
> libopenssl-ruby, ruby-dev.
> That doesn't mean that they are installed automatically when the user
> installs "ruby", but the package manager will suggest to install those
> packages too.

Well, I don't know about emacs... I don't recall ever needing to install 
emacs before installing ruby even from source, but on the other hand, 
disk space and bandwidth are so cheap these days I wouldn't care one way 
or the other.

But just yesterday I was trying to install mechanize (via rubygems) on 
my 9.10 system, and it kept failing because 'net/https' was missing. And 
I was scratching my head wonder why the heck a core piece of ruby like 
that wouldn't be there... I thought perhaps my disk was going dead on 
me... I eventually figured out what was up after some searching of the 
net, but I think this illustrates the sort of confusion that can arise.

The easiest way to solve this problem would be to rename "ruby" to 
"ruby-core" or something, then rename "ruby-full" to "ruby". This would 
allow the few who want partial ruby installs to still do so, but the 
great masses of users (and hosting providers!) who expect the package 
called "ruby" to be all of ruby will be spared confusion and 
frustration.

Also: don't let the unfriendly tone one often encounters on the internet 
get ya down. The medium itself seems to encourage that sort of thing... 
Your work IS appreciated! Keep in mind that it is Debian policy, not you 
personally, that seems to be the true target of the frustrations.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.