Jeremy Evans wrote:
Personally, I don't see a need for providing ports/packages for most
ruby libraries, except in the following cases:
1) The library contains a C extension. I'm in favor of providing
ports/packages for ruby libraries with C extensions, since whenever
you update your system to a new snapshot/release, you are generally
going to need to recompile the C extension, and pkg_add -ui will
handle that update for you. Example: www/ruby-unicorn.
2) The library requires patching to work on OpenBSD. There are only
a few cases of ruby libraries that actually need to get patched to
work on OpenBSD. Most of the in-tree patches in ruby ports are to
get the regression tests working, not the library itself. Example:
devel/ruby-rake-compiler.
3) The library is a dependency for something else in tree, in which
case it has to be packaged. Example: www/ruby-rack (dependency of
www/ruby-unicorn).
For a pure ruby library that doesn't require patching to work and
doesn't have any in-tree dependencies (referred to below as
"needless ports"), I don't think it makes sense to maintain a port
for it. The results of installing the package are pretty much the
same as using "gem install" to install the library.
I think this is a wise assessment.
Also, the gem system is better at managing versions.
