Re: Ruby-full

["Rudi Cilibrasi" <cilibrar@gmail.com>]

This is something I have also been wanting for a while although I am
in no big rush it would be nice I think.  I think there were actually
two different main senses of "the problem".  The older was the missing
"main standard extension libraries" like ruby zlib etc.  I think the
newer problem is the one Vincent is talking about if I remember right,
that not all the standard binary tools mentioned are installed by
default so n00bs get confused.  Cheers,

Rudi

On 12/22/06, vincent.fourmond@9online.fr <vincent.fourmond@9online.fr> wrote:
> ----- 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:
>  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


--
Experiment with Artificial Intelligence  at http://complearn.org/