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
