On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 03:01:57AM +0900, Bill Kelly wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> From: "Mauricio FernŠŌdez" <batsman.geo / yahoo.com>
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 11:19:42PM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
> > > The OS package management system will never serve all needs, so if
> > > "having some installed this way and some installed that way" is your
> > > concern, then it will never be the solution.
> >
> > I'd appreciate if you gave one need impossible to satisfy with the
> > scheme I proposed in my previous message and easily handled by the
> > "pure-Ruby solution". I believe the "Pure-Ruby" solution is not
> > necessarily more flexible or powerful, as we can always try to add
> > whatever is needed upstream (that is, integrated into the dists,
> > by going through the effort of becoming a member or contacting one
> > official developer).

Still waiting for a reply to this part :-)
 
> For my part, I'm currently doing Ruby on Windows, Linux, and
> Mac OS X...  I'd expect a "pure Ruby" installer to work the same
> way, from a command-line standpoint, on each of these systems...
> 
> Why should I have to use (whatever) on Mandrake, "fink" on OS X,
> and (...what, InstallShield? ;) on Windows to install Ruby
> packages?
> 
> Perhaps I'm not understanding this discussion... but the idea of
> the installation procedure for Ruby modules being different on each
> platform seems unfortunate to me.  Isn't that what this whole thread
> is about or started out as, a standardized installation procedure? :)

I'm not sure whether the installation interface should be the same in
each an every platform. Now this could also be written, but it should
use whatever is appropriate for the system beneath. What I do think is
that it would be a shame for FreeBSD users to be unable to use its
magnificent (I've been told) ports system, or having Gentoo deprived of
emerge, or Debian monks of deity, or win32 of... hey, wait :-)
 
> So many Ruby modules are platform-independent... It just seems
> whacky to me from an authoring standpoint to be wanting to
> release the latest version of my module, but telling people, well,
> you'll have to wait until somebody "ports" my platform-independent
> module to your specific OS's package manager before you have a
> convenient way to install it.

The idea is automating all this. You write the metadata, pass it to
some daemon and it creates all the binary packages for you. Think of
autobuilders.
 
> "Standardizing" on a platform-specific installation procedure for
> Ruby seems to me somewhere between ironic and oxymoronic....

It's rather standardizing metadata and providing the means
to distillate it into whatever is suited to the actual system.

First thing would be identifying the needs of both
 * the libraries/apps to be installed
 * the different platforms
and considering use cases.
 

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

'Ooohh.. "FreeBSD is faster over loopback, when compared to Linux
over the wire". Film at 11.'
	-- Linus Torvalds