[DRE-maint] Call for review: new version of "Position on rubygems"

Lucas Nussbaum lucas at lucas-nussbaum.net
Mon Feb 23 07:51:29 UTC 2009


On 22/02/09 at 22:54 +0100, Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:18:44 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum  
> <lucas at lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I attended a RubyCamp yesterday, which gave a very positive attitude of
>> the Ruby community (at least the local one, of course :P).
>>
>> I discussed the rubygems issue with them, and I think it basically
>> boils down to a lack of information on our side. I've tried to rework
>> the "Position on rubygems" page, matching how I explained the issue
>> during the RubyCamp.
>
>    Which lack of information on our side BTW? I always saw the Rubygems  
> issue as "Rubygems are source-intrusive and hostile to repackaging", and  
> that is kept on the updated position.

Yes, but:
- we have to admit that rubygems are useful to some people. For many
  ruby developers, it's a problem of "I use rubygems and find it useful,
  why wouldn't it be the same for everybody?".
- we have to provide more information on what we need from ruby
  developers.

My plan is, once we agree on both documents (position on rubygems, and
advices for upstream devs), to send them to ruby-{core,talk}@, so they
get more widely known. Many ruby developers simply don't know that we
have a problem. And they are well aware that ruby has a distribution
problem (it's not that widely used in the "real" world), and are willing
to help to change that.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas at lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas at nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |



More information about the Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list