Re: Ruby-full
Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 12:23:31PM +0000, vincent.fourmond@9online.fr wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> When using apt or aptitude, installing ruby gives you ruby1.8 which
> gives you rdoc1.8 and ri1.8. IRB can be seen as a separate app, thouhg
> it's a usefull one, so maybe it can be added.
It merely suggests, which is far from enough. Don't forget this
package is aimed at beginners. Moreover, it is far from instinctive to
use irb1.8, ri1.8 instead of the simple ri, irb...
>> 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.
>
> The gdbm, dbm, openssl and tk libraries were split of of libruby1.8 for
> a reason. Maybe Akira can enlighten (again) us about this. I am fine
> with it, more so because it was a careful compromise at the time.
I don't ask to put them back in one package, I just want to provide
users with a simple way to get a full ruby install.
> These libraries are almost never used and drag in extra dependancies.
> Also, IMHO, libruby-extras has nothing to do with it and this possible
> meta-pkg also lies within the realm of ruby/ruby1.8 core package team.
Agreed, but I believe there is some possibility to get this into Etch,
but we need to move fast. The package is ready (or nearly so). I'm ready
to give over maintainorship if that is necessary.
I just find it a pity to read 'debian sucks' on the lists when there's
such a simple solution ;-)...
Cheers,
Vincent
--
Vincent Fourmond, PhD student
http://vincent.fourmond.neuf.fr/
Reply to: