Hi Youhei, On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 12:01:05AM +0900, Youhei SASAKI wrote: > I don't want/recommend. > Because other software depends Jekyll may potentially depend Launchy. We > provides rubygems-integration, thus, we should provides completely > dependecies. Or we create/provide new abstraction layer in order to > resolve dependencies and use xdg-open directly. > Again, we should provides ruby-launchy package. The argument of rubygems-integration is interesting, and I haven't thought of it. However, launchy is listed as a development dependency, so applications depending on jekyll could not depend implictly on launchy by relying on jekyll's dependencies. I think we should evaluate what is the more expensive in terms of maintenance costs, between: - having a ruby-launchy package - maintaining simple patches to replace launchy by something else in other packages. Currently the Git repository of ruby-launchy contains 7 patches. It will contain at least one more because there is a name conflict between the bin/launchy executable and a binary named launchy from the launchy package. (there is a bug open upstream about this: https://github.com/copiousfreetime/launchy/issues/69) I grepped our repositories to find how many packages could use launchy: before Dominique mentionning that jekyll will use it, there was only mdpress. and the patch to replace launchy by xdg-open is two-line long. And it seems that the case for Jekyll is not much different. It is even "worse": launchy is only used from the project Rakefile, for tasks dealing with the website of the project. So you probably do not even need to patch that. ruby-capybara and webgen0.5 could use it, as well as tdiary for tests (but these tests are currently not run). The concept of launchy is interesting, but for the moment, it supports only opening a web browser in a platform independent manner. For UNIX-like environments, it adds a layer of logic to chose between desktop-specific tools or fall back to xdg-open. The Debian platform is quite homogeneous, and xdg-open is readily available. I feel more comfortable with one or two patches (one for mdpress, maybe one for jekyll) to replace launchy by xdg-open than with a heavily patched package launchy that use complex logic to "just" open a browser. I am not saying that I am against a ruby-launchy package, not at all. And probably, if we package more libraries using launchy, it will be unavoidable to package it. I just consider that as of today, it is more efficient to just replace the use of launchy by xdg-open in the one or two applications we maintain and may need it. Cheers, Cédric
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature