chad at chadfowler.com
chad at chadfowler.com
Thu Oct 21 11:17:26 EDT 2004
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 12:18:48PM +0200, Mauricio Fern?ndez wrote:
>> > about this. I'd like to know what the list thinks of this and/or I'd
>> > to get an idea from list members of what they think the most
>> > non-gemified libs are. I'm aiming to read up on the list archives in
>> > the next few days to try to get up to steam with the current goings on
>> > and get an idea of the projects trajectory. I wouldn't mind gemifying
>> > a handful of libs a day for some time into the unforeseeable future. A
>> > pretty long list could be gradually dispatched rather painlessly.
>> > and glad to be here. Looking forward to it.
>> Are you also willing to maintain those packages and provide some support
>> for them (e.g. handle bug reports, release package revisions, etc)?
>> In my experience (I have packaged over 130 libs/apps for RPA), just
>> keeping the packages up-to-date can be quite some work at times...
> I don't think it would be tenable after a certain point for me to handle
> bug reports but I am willing to try to keep up with package revisions. I
> imagine that keeping the packages up to date would be a substantial
> commitment unto itself.
I'm still planning to chat with you later today about this, but the way I
would go about it is to try to bootstrap gem-ification and then pass
things on to the original author as a contribution to the project.
Ideally, gems can/should be maintained by the same person who writes and
maintains the code. What you're planning (which is _fantastic_, btw) is
to get us a head start down that path.
What we could do is, via a volunteer effort, maintain gems for authors who
aren't maintaining themselves until such a time as they pick up the gem
process themselves. This is what I want to chat with you about when I get
some free time later today.
>> If you want to see what people are asking for, as far as packages are
>> concerned, you can take a look at
>> and the list of libs/apps I've packaged so far:
>> (many were packaged on demand).
> This seems to be a useful start. Thanks.
>> It would be very nice if you could package Ruby DBI: that's something
>> many other libraries depend on and it is used fairly often. It seems
>> non-trivial, though.
> I've added it to the list and will give it a shot. Thanks.
Another good list is the delta between packages in RPA and RubyGems.
There are quite a few differences in the package lists. In some cases
(though certainly not all) the effort and lessons learned from having
packaged something in RPA could make it easier to do the gems.
Perhaps Mauricio could provide a list of guidelines (in addition to what's
on the wiki) that would also make these new gem packages easier to
More information about the Rubygems-developers