On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 03:15:52 +0900, Eric Schwartz wrote:
> "Bill Kelly" <billk / cts.com> writes:
>> 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.
> AIUI, the point is to have an intermediate layer that takes care
> of all the platform-specificness for you, precisely so you don't
> have that problem. You just release your package with support for
> this layer, and then it takes care of any platform-specific
> weirdnesses (building .debs, .rpms, .whateverwindowsuses, etc.)

The neutral layer should include a "native" packaging format (a la
RubGEMS or something supportable entirely with Ruby) that all
packages should be in.

I also think that using an OS-based package manager for language
libraries is unnecessarily heavyweight and doesn't easily or nicely
support non-system installation. As an example, I use a hosting
solution that doesn't give me root access; thus, I must install all
libraries (Ruby, too!) in $HOME, not in a system directory. An OS
package manager not only won't help me, it would hinder me -- and
thousands of others in similar situations.

-austin
-- Austin Ziegler, austin / halostatue.ca on 2003.04.08 at 22:14:18