Re: Bug#462027: ITP: libactiverecord-ruby -- library that ties database tables to classes in Ruby
On 24-Jan-08, at 9:37 AM, Adam Majer wrote:
Jon Dowland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:35:06PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
Have you spoken with the rails package maintainer about this and
other ITP? Having duplicate copies of the same code lying around in
the archive is something the security team has said they are
discouraging. Splitting these out from the rails package seems like
the smarter way to go.
As a complete third-party, I'd be mildly interested in having
activerecord as a separate package from rails in it's entirety.
I concur with Jon Dowland, I would be more interested in a package
separate from rails; I use Ruby but not with rails.
Why? What is the disadvantage of having it together with rails? I'm
assuming 7MB of diskspace (2MB archive) is not what is your main
Also, keep in mind that if everyone contributed a redundant package of
7 Megabytes in size, the archive would grow in size to over a Gigabyte
from ^just^ those 7Mb packages alone in about 146 copies. (1024 / 7)
If your package works with both Ruby and Rails then packaging it for
Ruby is just as beneficial for Rails users, where as if you package it
for just Rails, other Ruby users may be missing out.