Re: Ruby-full

[vincent.fourmond@9online.fr]

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul van Tilburg 
Date: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:08 am
Subject: Re: Ruby-full
To: debian-ruby@lists.debian.org

> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:28:13AM +0100, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> >   For those of you who don't follow ruby-talk, here is the 
> summary of a
> > discussion of tonight. Quite a few ruby-talk posters are complaining
> > about the debian version of Ruby: they find it painful not to 
> have a
> > complete ruby installation with installing the ruby package. I can
> > understand that, but I also know the reasons behind the split.
> 
> This discussion has been held over one year ago. As you can see, it 
> hasbeen solved in Etch. 


> I don't see how: no packages depend on ri, rdoc and irb to provide a full ruby install. Or at least, nothing that aptitude shows me. So, unless I am very mistaken, this problem is still on. Moreover, people I wrote to this morning were using relatively recent debian versions, and they didn't seem to notice this.

  Namely, what has been required is a package ruby-full that would depend on:

ruby, irb, rdoc, ri, libgdbm-ruby, libdbm-ruby, libruby-extra and maybe the tk library.

  That doesn't exist yet. Would it hurt to make it ? I could do it before tomorrow. According to the people that wrote on r-t, that really is a problem for them and others, and that really something simple to do. Moreover, as a meta-package, it might even make it to etch.

  What do you think about it ?

      Vincent