[Rubygems-developers] Non-upstream packages

Mauricio Fernández batsman.geo at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 8 09:17:20 EST 2004


I was surprised to see a libbz2-0.4.gem in your repository; surprised
because the last upstream version is 0.2.1: that's the one listed in
RAA and what one can download from the primary source.

On closer inspection, I found a few interesting things:
* in addition to representing a non-existent (?) upstream version, 
  the .gem is in a deprecated format
* it doesn't compile the extension automatically
* the .gem includes a copy of another .gem inside
* the description is  description: pretty cool stuff, the email field is
  email: "?"
...

In a word, the package doesn't look very good. The author field has the
value "Guy Decoux", but I'm inclined to think that he didn't create that
mess...

So the general problem is: how can I know who is responsible for a
given .gem?  Where are bug reports to be sent? Where does it come from
to begin with: from Rubyforge, direct email submission...??

I know several libraries have been packaged by third parties on behalf
of the original authors, but the .gem always point to the original
developers, which doesn't feel right, especially when a .gem is as
unsatisfactory as the one at hand.

-- 
Hassle-free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list