| 1 |
On 9/14/06, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Caleb, |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > question... gem is the "official" package manager for Ruby. Why do we |
| 6 |
> > put Ruby stuff, other than the bare minimums to get Ruby running, in the |
| 7 |
> > portage tree? Why not just let gem handle it? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I favor this the same way I favor pear and pecl to handle those |
| 11 |
> extensions. But to each his own I guess... Aaron and I will have our own. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It makes sense to put gems into Portage if they are deps for other |
| 14 |
packages, or (in the case of something like mongrel) if they're an |
| 15 |
important package in of themselves. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If we had the man-power (which we don't), I'd favour having ebuilds |
| 18 |
for as many gems as possible. When you're managing servers, it's very |
| 19 |
nice to be able to audit your server against what the package manager |
| 20 |
says should be there :) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Best regards, |
| 23 |
Stu |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives