On 9/14/06, Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Caleb,
>
>
> question... gem is the "official" package manager for Ruby. Why do we
> put Ruby stuff, other than the bare minimums to get Ruby running, in the
> portage tree? Why not just let gem handle it?
>
I favor this the same way I favor pear and pecl to handle those
extensions. But to each his own I guess... Aaron and I will have our own.
It makes sense to put gems into Portage if they are deps for other
packages, or (in the case of something like mongrel) if they're an
important package in of themselves.
If we had the man-power (which we don't), I'd favour having ebuilds
for as many gems as possible. When you're managing servers, it's very
nice to be able to audit your server against what the package manager
says should be there :)
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
