>On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Maxime Gauduin <alucryd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >As I mentioned above, you can easily reverse that statement. Why throw >Bundler and Rubygems in the mix when you have pacman? I personally think >that having pacman-managed dirs tinkered with by another package manager is >heresy :P I have no problem using one in "~" or any other dir that pacman >does not manage though, and as Rashif said, all in all it's just a matter >of options and preferences. Rubygems, as well as well as bundler, RVM and the rest of the Ruby ecosystem, use folders under $HOME by default (unless installing with sudo, which is not really necessary). There should be no pollution of pacman-managed dirs. I also think pacman packages for ruby gems, or even the Ruby interpreter itself, are wasted effort. The ruby community generally considers using system-managed gems and interpreters a bad practice; they get slower updates, it's hard to keep multiple versions installed in parallel, different users share the same set of gems which is not always desirable... I'm sure fixing all those in pacman packages is possible but it would be costly, and why do that work when there are tools in the Ruby ecosystem that already solve the problem in a platform-independent way? It seems to me like a case of "when you have a hammer, all problems look like nails". In this case pacman is not the best suited tool, rubygems and bundler and RVM and friends are. Just my 2 cents. ----------- I'd flash you my business card, but my hands are too full of guns. - Peter Quill, aka Star-Lord, making another dashing rescue
