On Monday 13 Jan 2014 11:38:57 Alfredo Palhares wrote:
I agree with you, some ruby-packages just are a royal pain in the arse to maintain. Sometimes i wish I just when with rbenv[1] and call it a day. I still have some packages that use the old naming convention.
But like you said the worst scenerio is to deal with multiple versions, like one fact you need to update an gem, but packages that depend on it need an older version of it, so now you have to have 2 versions of that gem.
It can be done, we just need more man power to put quality packages.
Forgive me: I'm a little unclear on why it's better to have the packages available via pacman? I do development in Rails and am personally perfectly happy to use rubygems (and rbenv, for larger projects) for gem management. I suppose it does mean there are files installed on the system that pacman can't identify, but personally I use rubygems enough that I have no problem handling the concept of two package managers that operate in different domains... I'm not trying to dismiss your effort, I'm just concerned that this seems a little like duplication. Paul