Re: Bug#462027: ITP: libactiverecord-ruby -- library that ties database tables to classes in Ruby

[Jeff W <jeff.welling@gmail.com>]

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  
> > > your
> > > other ITP? Having duplicate copies of the same code lying around in
> > > the archive is something the security team has said they are  
> > > actively
> > > 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  
> reason.
>
> - Adam


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.

.Jeff