# Tattle - The Ruby Census **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [January 8, 2007, 10:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407 "2007-01-08T22:01:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 4:45am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/21 "2007-01-10T04:45:23Z")
Ryan D. wrote: > dependencies, then file a bug with rubygems and/or offer them a well > tested patch. Otherwise, drop it as it doesn’t matter one bit. Maybe instead of complaining for a paragraph about this guy’s behavior, you could answer his question (in case you’ve forgotten: “Why?”), as Eric demonstrated. ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 5:34am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/22 "2007-01-10T05:34:27Z")
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Ryan D. wrote: > In other words, who cares?!? At least one other person than me, apparently, since I didn’t ask this question originally. > It sounds like you’re complaining simply because it offends your > sensibilities. If you have a problem with the way gems does > dependencies, then file a bug with rubygems and/or offer them a well > tested patch. Otherwise, drop it as it doesn’t matter one bit. I’m not really complaining, just asking. And nobody has answered my question yet. It’s not a problem with the way gem handles dependencies. It’s a problem with hoe injecting itself as a dependency on any gem it creates. And it’s not really a problem, I just want to know why. You’re acting like I’m insulting your sister, but I’m really just asking a question. Ben ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 7:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/23 "2007-01-10T07:53:34Z")
On Jan 9, 2007, at 11:33 PM, Ben B. wrote: > It’s not a problem with the way gem handles dependencies. It’s a > problem with hoe injecting itself as a dependency on any gem it > creates. > And it’s not really a problem, I just want to know why. No, hoe is acting absolutely properly when it injects itself into the dependency list. Any gem should FULLY list all of its dependencies it requires to work (defined broadly by rubygems but could be summarized as “something mentioned by ‘require’”). That would include rake if you have a Rakefile. Since a Rakefile is just software (a specification for automated behavior), it too can have dependencies. Since hoe projects are just rakefiles that use hoe, it has a dependency on hoe… Without hoe as a dependency, the software packaged in a hoe-based gem doesn’t work 100%. But… you’re a smart guy. You knew that. ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 5:44am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/24 "2007-01-10T05:44:27Z")
I found this strange, too. I love hoe, I’m just puzzled as to why it’s required by the gems it creates. Not a dealbreaker; just a curiousity. 🙂 –Jeremy On 1/9/07, Ben B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > sensibilities. If you have a problem with the way gems does > > Ben – My free Ruby e-book: [http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/book/](http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/book/) My blogs: > **[Site not found · DreamHost](http://www.mrneighborly.com/)** > > The owner of this domain has not yet uploaded their website. [http://www.rubyinpractice.com/](http://www.rubyinpractice.com/) ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 12:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/25 "2007-01-10T12:06:24Z")
Ryan D. schrieb: > On Jan 9, 2007, at 4:29 AM, Pit C. wrote: > > > Chad, why does tattle depend on the hoe and rubyforge gems? > > Uh… because hoe is the single most awesome thing for ruby project > development in the last 6 years? It is used in 5% of all rubygems. > Get over it. Plus this answer to Ben: > It sounds like you’re complaining simply because it offends your > sensibilities. If you have a problem with the way gems does > dependencies, then file a bug with rubygems and/or offer them a well > tested patch. Otherwise, drop it as it doesn’t matter one bit. And: > … Without hoe as a dependency, the software packaged in a hoe-based > gem doesn’t work 100%. But… you’re a smart guy. You knew that. Ho, ho, ho, calm down, Ryan, I didn’t want to step on your toes or your “most awesome” project. I haven’t used hoe yet. From the little I remember of the announcements, it looked to me like a tool for the gem developer, not for the gem user. That’s why I asked the question, just out of interest. Why did you think I was complaining? All I needed was a little “gem uninstall hoe” after running tattle. This is a small price to pay compared to all the work the rubygems people are doing. No problem for me. After all the posts in this thread I still haven’t got a clear answer to my original question yet. (So much for the signal to noise ratio.) Eric wrote that hoe is necessary to be able to say “rake test”, and that “gem install -t” doesn’t work reliably. (BTW: I’m sure you’ve given him the same advice you gave Ben, namely to file a bug with rubygems, didn’t you?) I’m not sure where I, as a tattle user, should execute “rake test”, but I assume it is in the installation directory of the tattle gem. But in this directory I can also simply enter “testrb test” to run all the tattle tests. So it seems hoe is of not much use in this case. You wrote that a gem developed with hoe needs hoe at runtime to work 100%. I did a little test: gem install tattle (plus hoe, plus rubyforge) remove the hoe dependency from the tattle gemspec gem uninstall hoe gem uninstall rubyforge run tattle unit tests (with “testrb test”) run tattle report run tattle It seems all is working well, even without hoe. So I’m still curious what services hoe offers to gems at runtime. > … Without hoe as a dependency, the software packaged in a hoe-based > gem doesn’t work 100%. But… you’re a smart guy. You knew that. Seems I’m not. I’m still not knowing it. Regards, Pit ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 2:07pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/26 "2007-01-10T14:07:37Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:52 AM, Ryan D. wrote: > Any gem should FULLY list all of its dependencies it requires to > work (defined broadly by rubygems but could be summarized as > “something mentioned by ‘require’”). That would include rake if you > have a Rakefile. I don’t agree with that. FasterCSV, for example, has a Rakefile. It makes my life as a developer easier. I can run tests easier, create releases easier, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with running FasterCSV. Rake is not needed for that, so I think adding it as a dependency is wrong. If you want to play with FasterCSV’s source, you have two options. First, you can make sure rake is installed and use all the easy shortcuts I do. Or, you can do things the slightly longer way. I even document this. Here’s an excerpt from the FasterCSV documentation: == Running the Tests If you would like to run FasterCSV’s test suite on your system before installing and you have Rake installed, just issue the following command from the root of the project directory: $ rake If you do not have rake, use the following command instead: $ ruby -I lib:test test/ts\_all.rb -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Remember, rake and hoe just automate some commands that can always be issued manually. Thinking about it another way, how many precompiled extensions, for Windows let’s say, include a Makefile? What the heck do you need that for and how likely is make to be installed? James Edward G. II ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 11:02am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/27 "2007-01-10T11:02:18Z")
Ryan D. wrote: > No, hoe is acting absolutely properly when it injects itself into the > dependency list. Any gem should FULLY list all of its dependencies it > requires to work (defined broadly by rubygems but could be summarized > as “something mentioned by ‘require’”). There is a difference of opinion here. Ryan thinks dependencies should include meta-dependencies. Many people, though, do not. The question has come up before: [http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=5993&group\_id=1513&atid=5921](http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=5993&group_id=1513&atid=5921) [http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=7118&group\_id=1513&atid=5922](http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=7118&group_id=1513&atid=5922) I agree with those who want to avoid installing meta-dependencies on production servers. So, here is Echoe, a Hoe 1.1.6 fork. sudo gem install echoe [http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group\_id=2835](http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=2835) To use Echoe properly in a Rakefile, load it conditionally, like so: require ‘rubygems’ require ‘rake’ begin require ‘echoe’ # all your regular Echoe config rescue LoadError =\> boom puts “You are missing a dependency required for meta-operations on this gem.” puts “#{boom.to\_s.capitalize}.” desc ‘No effect.’ task :default; end # if you still want tests when Echoe is not present desc ‘Run the test suite.’ task :test do system “ruby -Ibin:lib:test some\_tests\_test.rb” # or whatever end end Personally, I hate Echoe. There is no reason to fork. But I think that there is a need here, and if the Hoe developers refuse to acknowledge it, we have no choice. Evan W. PS. Ryan, I submitted a patch against Rubyforge 0.4.0 for some stuff. [http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=7727&group\_id=1024&atid=4027](http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=7727&group_id=1024&atid=4027) ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 2:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/28 "2007-01-10T14:43:52Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Austin Z. wrote: > included with my gems because of idempotency. > My Rakefile is included. I just don’t make rake a dependency. > What we _need_ to resolve this is recommended dependencies; currently, > RubyGems dependencies are mandatory if present. Hoe should be a > recommended, but not mandatory, dependency. That makes sense to me. James Edward G. II ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 2:39pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/29 "2007-01-10T14:39:51Z")
On 1/10/07, James Edward G. II [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:52 AM, Ryan D. wrote: > > > Any gem should FULLY list all of its dependencies it requires to > > work (defined broadly by rubygems but could be summarized as > > “something mentioned by ‘require’”). That would include rake if you > > have a Rakefile. > > I don’t agree with that. I didn’t used to. Now, as I get back into Ruby development, I will be ensuring that the Rakefiles that I use to deploy software are also included with my gems because of idempotency. Mauricio convinced me of the value of that. What we _need_ to resolve this is recommended dependencies; currently, RubyGems dependencies are mandatory if present. Hoe should be a recommended, but not mandatory, dependency. -austin ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 3:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/30 "2007-01-10T15:00:54Z")
Austin Z. wrote: > included with my gems because of idempotency. Mauricio convinced me of > the value of that. > > What we _need_ to resolve this is recommended dependencies; currently, > RubyGems dependencies are mandatory if present. Hoe should be a > recommended, but not mandatory, dependency. > > -austin > I find “recommended dependencies” a pain in the behind, as well as being > an oxymoron. If I install a package, I want to know I’m getting what’s > _required_ and _only_ what’s required. Remember the YAGNI principle – > You Ain’t Gonna Need It! I work with three package management systems – RubyGems, Gentoo’s Portage and the R language package management system. R automatically installs recommended packages, and I end up having to uninstall them in some cases. And yet R does _not_ tell me when I don’t have an underlying _Linux_ dependency missing! The way I find that out is by looking at the log files from a failed install, usually in the configure step. ☹ – M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P) [http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/](http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/) If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire. ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 3:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/31 "2007-01-10T15:04:54Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 8:00 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > I find “recommended dependencies” a pain in the behind, as well as > being an oxymoron. I think there is a very real need for them. With HighLine, we would love the make termios a dependency, because our libraries functionality is so much better on Unix with it. Unfortunately we can’t, since it breaks the install process on Windows. A recommended dependency could help us with this. James Edward G. II ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 3:15pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/32 "2007-01-10T15:15:55Z")
Pit C. wrote: > Ryan D. schrieb: > > > … Without hoe as a dependency, the software packaged in a hoe-based > > gem doesn’t work 100%. But… you’re a smart guy. You knew that. > > Seems I’m not. I’m still not knowing it. He was applying that cleverist of humor devices known as sarcasm. He was insulting you. See, by typing “you’re a smart guy” after typing an explanation he considered to be unnecessary, that’s his was of saying that you’re not a smart guy. Oh, Ryan, you scoundrel! Devin ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 3:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/33 "2007-01-10T15:19:57Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 8:15 AM, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote: > > dependency could help us with this. > > Isn’t this a case of a platform dependent dependency? The idea of > “platform” could be very general, perhaps, including things like > “I’m on > a Mac, I don’t want to use My SQL, but I do use SQLite”. We would use that if available too, yes. 😉 HighLine does work without termios, just not as well. So, in this case, a recommended or platform dependency would help. James Edward G. II ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 3:15pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/34 "2007-01-10T15:15:56Z")
Mr Gray: > On Jan 10, 2007, at 8:00 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > > > I find “recommended dependencies” a pain in the behind, as well as > > being an oxymoron. > > I think there is a very real need for them. With HighLine, we would > love the make termios a dependency, because our libraries > functionality is so much better on Unix with it. Unfortunately we > can’t, since it breaks the install process on Windows. A recommended > dependency could help us with this. Isn’t this a case of a platform dependent dependency? The idea of “platform” could be very general, perhaps, including things like “I’m on a Mac, I don’t want to use My SQL, but I do use SQLite”. Just a random thought - sorry if it is noise. ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 3:24pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/35 "2007-01-10T15:24:57Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Devin M. wrote: > \ > That’s an interesting idea. Does gems support post-install scripts? James Edward G. II ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 3:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/36 "2007-01-10T15:21:57Z")
James Edward G. II wrote: > I think there is a very real need for them. With HighLine, we would > love the make termios a dependency, because our libraries functionality > is so much better on Unix with it. Unfortunately we can’t, since it > breaks the install process on Windows. A recommended dependency could > help us with this. What about a custom post-install step that said, “Blah blah blah, these are our recommended dependencies, and here’s why. Would you like to `gem install` any of them?” \ Devin ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 4:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/37 "2007-01-10T16:16:13Z")
On Jan 9, 2007, at 13:03, Ben B. wrote: > again. > Bad example. Its required by rails: $ gem dep rails --version=1.1.6 Gem rails-1.1.6 rake (\>= 0.7.1) […] > > > I shouldn’t need to install the rubyforge gem to install someone > > > else’s library, but if they packaged it with hoe, I’m forced to. > > > This doesn’t make sense. > > > > Same for rake, but nobody complains. > > Not true at all: > > […] I thought this thread was about [hoe packaged project] requires hoe/ rubyforge. In that vein I’ve not seen a thread about [hoe packaged project] requires rake (or hoe/rubyforge/rake). Why is that? I think the real complaint is that currently RubyGems has no way to distinguish between build-time dependencies and run-time dependencies. Hoe has the option of marking itself as dependent upon what it needs or creating broken gems (even if only for a small population). I don’t like the latter so I’m left with the former. Directing complaints at Hoe is the wrong target. Directing feature requests and/or patches at RubyGems is the right target. – Eric H. - removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid - [http://blog.segment7.net](http://blog.segment7.net) I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE! ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 4:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/38 "2007-01-10T16:30:18Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 06:23, James Edward G. II wrote: > > these are our recommended dependencies, and here’s why. Would you > > like to `gem install` any of them?" > > \ > > That’s an interesting idea. Does gems support post-install scripts? It supports post-install messages, but nobody reads those, especially when they scroll off the screen because one package was installed as a dependency of another. Instead RubyGems needs built-time and run-time dependencies. – Eric H. - removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid - [http://blog.segment7.net](http://blog.segment7.net) I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE! ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 4:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/39 "2007-01-10T16:28:16Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 05:07, James Edward G. II wrote: > Thinking about it another way, how many precompiled extensions, for > Windows let’s say, include a Makefile? What the heck do you need > that for and how likely is make to be installed? You don’t include makefiles, you include extconf.rb and run it to generate a Makefile. – Eric H. - removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid - [http://blog.segment7.net](http://blog.segment7.net) I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE! ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Chad\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Chad_F)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 4:49pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/40 "2007-01-10T16:49:20Z")
removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote: > > functionality is so much better on Unix with it. Unfortunately we > > can’t, since it breaks the install process on Windows. A recommended > > dependency could help us with this. > > Isn’t this a case of a platform dependent dependency? The idea of > “platform” could be very general, perhaps, including things like “I’m on > a Mac, I don’t want to use My SQL, but I do use SQLite”. > > Just a random thought - sorry if it is noise. Yes, indeed, there are platform dependencies. The point is that someone has to expend effort at some point. In the specific case of R and Debian GNU/Linux, for example, a “volunteer” packages a large number of R packages as Debian packages, so one can use the “apt” mechanisms to maintain R packages on a Debian system. On Gentoo, there’s another set of “volunteers” that integrates Ruby packages into Portage, and there’s even some automation in place – and more on the way. On Windows, yet another set of “volunteers” has to recompile the R packages with C, C++ or FORTRAN code, as is also the case for Ruby packages with C extensions. In addition, R packages for Windows typically carry along binaries of dependencies – for example, the R interfaces to SQLite and Graphviz install the DLLs required to make them work. I don’t own a Mac, so I have no idea how all this magic works on a Mac. So it’s a tradeoff between ease of use for a user base and ease of use for a distributor. I’d rather have non-requirements be optional by default and have to explicitly install them than have them install by default and have to explicitly remove them. So … which is more work for a distributor, especially if said distributor has to maintain a source repository and a Windows binary repository? And what happens on Macs? – M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P) [http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/](http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/) If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire. [Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407.md?page=1) [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407.md?page=3)