[arch-general] Ruby gem packages in Arch

Paul Gideon Dann pdgiddie at gmail.com
Mon Jan 13 05:52:13 EST 2014

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 


More information about the arch-general mailing list