A long thread on GitHub in which I beg the RubyGems community to stop stripping down gem releases to leave out important source code such as the test suite. The predominant logic seems to be "users don't want the full source," and frankly that is terrible.
https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1364
https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1364
Christine Lemmer-Webber, jasonriedy@fmrl.me, AJ Jordan, Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) and 1 others likes this.
Christine Lemmer-Webber, Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠), Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠), Douglas Perkins and 2 others shared this.
Show all 11 replies
Argh, what a frustrating read. What's so difficult about "[please standardize this thing and add minimal tool support]"?
About git determinism, I think I saw some "-checkout" artifacts in the store. For git pull, maybe? So it seems this is already a thing?
The git ls-files part though, that would require an actual release step like you are saying. Repo source, release source, binary really make sense as categories.
About git determinism, I think I saw some "-checkout" artifacts in the store. For git pull, maybe? So it seems this is already a thing?
The git ls-files part though, that would require an actual release step like you are saying. Repo source, release source, binary really make sense as categories.
Yes, those categories are what GNU software use. When checking out the repo, you have to bootstrap the build system. The released source has a pre-bootstrapped build system + the docs built. A binary release, say as a .deb package, has just the installed stuff. RubyGems wants to provide only the latter, which could actually be a real legal issue if they are distributing binaries for GPL'd software.
Yeah, I know how it is. I'm just agreeing with you that how it is is how it ought to be. ;-)
Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) at 2015-10-20T21:40:20Z
David Thompson likes this.
@David Thompson just build the guix package from a docker image, that'll solve it
Christine Lemmer-Webber at 2015-10-21T01:04:39Z
Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠), David Thompson likes this.