# 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:** 3
**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, 4:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/41 "2007-01-10T16:58:22Z")
From: “Devin M.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > that you’re not a smart guy. Oh, Ryan, you scoundrel! > He knew all the tricks. Dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, > litotes and… satire. He was vicious! SCNR, Bill ---
**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, 4:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/42 "2007-01-10T16:58:22Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Eric H. wrote: > The problem is in RubyGems not allowing you the ability to > distinguish between run-time dependencies and build-time dependencies. This is an interesting idea. Can you explain how this would help? What would RubyGems do with the two different kinds of dependencies? How would it end up that we wouldn’t just have the combined list installed on all systems? 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, 5:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/43 "2007-01-10T17:17:32Z")
On 1/10/07, Eric H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > You fixed this the wrong way. The problem is in RubyGems not > allowing you the ability to distinguish between run-time dependencies > and build-time dependencies. I’m having a hard time with terminology. If you’re deploying a pure ruby gem, then a build-time requirement which is not a run-time requirement is not a dependency, right? That is, if build-time does not include any time after the gem is downloaded to my client box, then stuff you (the maintainer of the gem) need at build time should not be a dependency in the gem sense. So “build-time dependencies” should exist in the gem sense only when a gem requires compilation, I think. If I am mistaken, then the phrase “build-time dependencies” has some meaning to you which is opaque to me. For clarity, I will observe that the gem process has more than build- and run- time… Developer-build-time Download-time Deploy-time Local-build time Run-time -A ---
**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, 4:52pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/44 "2007-01-10T16:52:21Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 02:02, Evan W. wrote: > [http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php](http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php)? > func=detail&aid=5993&group\_id=1513&atid=5921 > [http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php](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. You fixed this the wrong way. The problem is in RubyGems not allowing you the ability to distinguish between run-time dependencies and build-time dependencies. > 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. The problem is beyond Hoe’s. Don’t fork hoe to fix a problem that exists in RubyGems. Fix RubyGems instead. – 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, 5:49pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/45 "2007-01-10T17:49:50Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 07:57, James Edward G. II wrote: > On Jan 10, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Eric H. wrote: > > > The problem is in RubyGems not allowing you the ability to > > distinguish between run-time dependencies and build-time > > dependencies. > > This is an interesting idea. Can you explain how this would help? > What would RubyGems do with the two different kinds of > dependencies? How would it end up that we wouldn’t just have the > combined list installed on all systems? For example, FreeBSD’s ports has these two types of dependencies, but uses them slightly differently than RubyGems would need. FreeBSD gives you the option of installing a pre-built package or building from source. An image manipulation tool might require libpng to run, but to be built from source it would also need libtool and autoconf. If you install the package only libpng is installed on your system. If you install from source then libpng, libtool and autoconf are installed. You can remove autoconf and libtool at your leisure and nobody cares. For RubyGems you might have run-time dependencies (rails needs rake, activerecord, actionpack, …) and build-time (or developer) dependencies (FasterCSV needs rake if you want to run the tests or add features or fix bugs). By default RubyGems would not install build-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, 6:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/46 "2007-01-10T18:29:07Z")
Eric H. wrote: > You fixed this the wrong way. The problem is in RubyGems not > allowing you the ability to distinguish between run-time dependencies > and build-time dependencies. I disagree. It’s a difference of opinion. > By “build” I mean work on, not compile. ZenTest is a build-time > dependency for some of my gems because I use its assertion library > when I’m building (adding features to or fixing bugs in) that gem. You do not mean what I mean when you say “build-time”. I think it is good for a gem to include everything necessary to modify and redeploy it. I do not think that should extend as far as forcing the user to install external packages that they would only need if they decided to do so. Evan W. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/47 "2007-01-10T17:28:46Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 08:16, Alex LeDonne wrote: > On 1/10/07, Eric H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > You fixed this the wrong way. The problem is in RubyGems not > > allowing you the ability to distinguish between run-time dependencies > > and build-time dependencies. > > I’m having a hard time with terminology. > > If you’re deploying a pure ruby gem, then a build-time requirement > which is not a run-time requirement is not a dependency, right? Provided RubyGems allows you to make such a distinction, correct. At present RubyGems dependencies are dependencies, regardless of how they are used. > That is, if build-time does not include any time after the gem is > downloaded to my client box, then stuff you (the maintainer of the > gem) need at build time should not be a dependency in the gem sense. > > So “build-time dependencies” should exist in the gem sense only when a > gem requires compilation, I think. If I am mistaken, then the phrase > “build-time dependencies” has some meaning to you which is opaque to > me. By “build” I mean work on, not compile. ZenTest is a build-time dependency for some of my gems because I use its assertion library when I’m building (adding features to or fixing bugs in) that gem. > For clarity, I will observe that the gem process has more than build- > and run- time… > > Developer-build-time > Download-time > Deploy-time > Local-build time > Run-time – 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, 6:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/48 "2007-01-10T18:51:02Z")
On 2007-01-10, Eric H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > By “build” I mean work on, not compile. ZenTest is a build-time > dependency for some of my gems because I use its assertion library > when I’m building (adding features to or fixing bugs in) that gem. Just a terminology nitpick, but it sounds like you’re talking about _development_ dependencies rather than build dependencies. Rather like the way many projects require extra dependencies if you build from a checkout instead of a tarball. Does that clarify or obscure? Regards, Jeremy H. ---
**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, 6:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/49 "2007-01-10T18:43:01Z")
On 1/10/07, Eric H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > which is not a run-time requirement is not a dependency, right? > > Provided RubyGems allows you to make such a distinction, correct. At > present RubyGems dependencies are dependencies, regardless of how > they are used. I’m suggesting that something not required at run-time should not appear in the gemspec as a dependency; the definition of dependencies in the gem sense is “the gems that must be installed for this gem to work.” (from [http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/20](http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/20) ) In other words, RubyGems already makes such a distinction. Dependencies in the gemspec are defined as the run-time dependencies. > dependency for some of my gems because I use its assertion library > when I’m building (adding features to or fixing bugs in) that gem. I assert that if I don’t need to have ZenTest installed to use your gem, then ZenTest should not appear in the gemspec as a dependency. If I want to work on your gems to contribute, I’ll use source control to get your README, which I presume will list development requirements/dependencies. -A ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/50 "2007-01-10T19:11:05Z")
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007, Devin M. wrote: > Pit C. wrote: > > > 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! Actually, he was insulting me, apparently for daring to have a different opinion than he. I’m hurt, truly. 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, 7:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/51 "2007-01-10T19:18:06Z")
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007, Eric H. wrote: > > Not true. I need rake to work with Rails, even though I’m not doing > > any development on the Rails libraries. If it were packaged with > > Hoe, I’d need to install hoe, but I’d never actually use the Hoe > > libraries again. > > Bad example. Its required by rails: No, it’s exactly the right example. As I said above, rake is required to _use_ rails. For instance, to migrate the database. Not a library development issue. > 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? The problem is Hoe, though. If it wasn’t packaged with Hoe, it wouldn’t require Hoe. Hoe requires Rake. If Hoe didn’t force gems it creates to install Hoe, Rake wouldn’t be a dependency. > 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. I agree with you here, for the most part. I think it’s rare that people who are doing development on a gem are actually going to have installed it via gem, as opposed to checking it out of source control. That makes your “broken” population very small. > Directing complaints at Hoe is the wrong target. Directing feature > requests and/or patches at RubyGems is the right target. I disagree here. In my opinion (and the opinion of others, apparently) Hoe is doing something that is unnecessary. Your opinion is clearly different. Mind you, I’m not really complaining, and I don’t think anyone else is either. Hoe does something that struck people as strange, and asked about it. That’s when people started getting defensive. 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, 9:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/52 "2007-01-10T21:08:22Z")
This argument (mbox format): 178,544 bytes rake-0.7.1.gem: 76,800 bytes rubyforge-0.4.0.gem: 28,160 bytes hoe-1.1.7.gem: 12,288 bytes total dependencies for hoe-packaged gems: 117,248 bytes hoe and rubyforge alone: 40,448 bytes So we’ve argued for 61,296 more bytes than it takes to download all three of a hoe packages dependencies. Or, you could have downloaded hoe and rubyforge 4.4 times in the amount of mail spent on this argument. – 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, 9:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/53 "2007-01-10T21:13:23Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Eric H. wrote: > So we’ve argued for 61,296 more bytes than it takes to download all > three of a hoe packages dependencies. I find it far more depressing that you and Ryan chose to call this an argument and handle it as such. I guess I really am just a lot more dumb you are, because I’ve been having a conversation and trying to learn things from it. I really wish it was OK for us to do that. 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, 9:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/54 "2007-01-10T21:17:24Z")
I think one of the concerns is deploying these gems on production boxes; if an exploit of some sort (God forbid) is found, that’s putting my box in danger. I doubt these gems are in danger of something like that, but I guess somehow they could be (i.e., flaw in the rubyforge gem, somehow exploting rake to overwrite files…I don’t know). For me, it’s just a question of principle. For example, I just built a gem for something I’ve been working on. It requires hoe because I used hoe to build it, but it’s a very simple library, and as such, my users will never, ever need hoe (and some may not want it on their system). Why do I, as the one building the gem, not have the option to exclude it? Why not just generate a Rakefile and I’ll include it if it needs it; otherwise make a gemspec and build the gem and leave hoe off the deps. At least, that’s how I would do it. I understand if theres some sort of other, technical reason far beyond my comprehension. –Jeremy On 1/10/07, Eric H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > three of a hoe packages dependencies. – 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, 9:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/55 "2007-01-10T21:25:25Z")
Eric H. wrote: … > So we’ve argued for 61,296 more bytes than it takes to download all > three of a hoe packages dependencies. There are bytes and there are bytes. Some are apples and some are oranges. Expressing the answer to P=NP is one bit. How many bits have gone into the discussion of P=NP? …my 1368 bits added to the 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, 10:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/56 "2007-01-10T22:06:30Z")
Ok it’s not very clever but… I’ve used FreeRIDE to code my program. No, better, Eclipse. Should I add it as a dependency to my library ? In mongrel and rfuzz, some C code is generated by ragel. Should I add it as a dependency ? Okay okay, don’t hit me 🙂 I really think that runtime (ak. from gem) and developping (ak. from your favourite SCM) dependencies should not be the same. But having hoe and rubyforge won’t kill me 🙂 Cheers, zimbatm ---
**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, 9:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/57 "2007-01-10T21:18:05Z")
Eric H. wrote: > total dependencies for hoe-packaged gems: 117,248 bytes > hoe and rubyforge alone: 40,448 bytes It’s not about the filesize. It’s about not having to audit and install packages you don’t plan to use in your production systems. Evan W. ---
**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, 10:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/58 "2007-01-10T22:23:34Z")
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 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. Mmm. You need something different yet. You need a platform-specific dependency. Maybe the dependency list on gems should be a “smart” object: gem.dependencies \<\< “foo-1.0” # required dependency gem.dependencies.platform \<\< [POSIX, “termios-1.0”] Probably more work than it’s worth 😉 -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, 10:20pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/59 "2007-01-10T22:20:33Z")
On Jan 10, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Devin M. wrote: > was of saying that you’re not a smart guy. Oh, Ryan, you scoundrel! > I’m pretty much going to ignore the rest of this bikeshed DIALOG, but > I thought I should respond to this. For the record: “On Jan 9, 2007, at 11:33 PM, Ben B. wrote:” was the attribution in my email with the “you’re a smart guy” comment. I know, like, and respect Ben and can say “you’re a smart guy” about/to him without sarcasm. I couldn’t possibly say that about Pit C. (since I don’t know him). You might want to actually read the email before you go making assumptions about me, my intentions, or my thought process. ---
**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, 10:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407/60 "2007-01-10T22:28:35Z")
On 1/10/07, Alex LeDonne [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On 1/10/07, Eric H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > You fixed this the wrong way. The problem is in RubyGems not > > allowing you the ability to distinguish between run-time dependencies > > and build-time dependencies. > > I’m having a hard time with terminology. Eric means run-time dependencies and idempotency dependencies. Hoe is required so that someone could take an existing installed gem and package or repackage it just like the original author does. That’s idempotency. -a [Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407.md?page=2) [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/tattle-the-ruby-census/81407.md?page=4)