3 ms·
This is clever technology and a well-known problem, but I wonder how much traction it will get since it's going to be a for-pay service.
by LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
This is clever technology and a well-known problem, but I wonder how much traction it will get since it's going to be a for-pay service.
- jcapote 18y agoHow is this a "problem"? What is wrong with just regular rubygems?
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y agoFrom an Operations standpoint, having two conflicting package management systems is a huge headache. It's one more point of failure on production systems. The jpackage project was a similar effort which packaged oft-used Java libraries in RPM format.
- mileszs 18y agoHere is a thread (and related article) on HN about the problems with RubyGems: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=386036 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=386036 Here is the official position of the Debian/Ruby-Extras team: http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html It has been a polarizing issue, as you can see.
- mtkd 18y agoI agree, this is a worthy cause, but you'll have to prise real cash out of a Debian user's cold dead hands ...
- nailer 18y agoI personally wouldn't pay because I'd be surprised if there wasn't a similar community effort very soon, as there is for Python modules and Java classes. Better for the company to market themselves with - create their own repo, but Open Source it and make sure their URL appear in every aptitude run.