This is something I have also been wanting for a while although I am in no big rush it would be nice I think. I think there were actually two different main senses of "the problem". The older was the missing "main standard extension libraries" like ruby zlib etc. I think the newer problem is the one Vincent is talking about if I remember right, that not all the standard binary tools mentioned are installed by default so n00bs get confused. Cheers,
Rudi On 12/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Paul van Tilburg Date: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:08 am Subject: Re: Ruby-full To: [email protected] > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:28:13AM +0100, Vincent Fourmond wrote: Namely, what has been required is a package ruby-full that would depend on: ruby, irb, rdoc, ri, libgdbm-ruby, libdbm-ruby, libruby-extra and maybe the tk library. That doesn't exist yet. Would it hurt to make it ? I could do it before tomorrow. According to the people that wrote on r-t, that really is a problem for them and others, and that really something simple to do. Moreover, as a meta-package, it might even make it to etch. What do you think about it ? Vincent
-- Experiment with Artificial Intelligence at http://complearn.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
