ANN: PLD RPMs of rake and ruby-dbi and a plea to packagers

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Aredridel, Feb 22, 2004.

  1. Aredridel

    Aredridel Guest

    I've just created packages (including .spec files to be used as
    templates in other distros) of rake and ruby-dbi for the PLD GNU/Linux
    distribution. They should be at the builders reasonably quickly, and
    available for general consumption after that.

    I also have a plea for package maintainers: Make your packages
    distribution friendly. Let the distribution build a package as a
    non-root user -- supporting and documenting a DESTDIR variable,
    "--destdir" config option or supporting "--prefix" in the install phase
    is all fine. I'm tired of finding custom install.rb scripts, though,
    that don't support it, and having to patch the packages before I commit
    them.

    Also, one thing to consider: Let the package install into
    rubylibdir, not just sitelibdir. Many distributions consider it good
    form to put distro-supplied packages in a "System" directory -- for
    perl, this is the vendor_perl branch; in ruby, this is the rubylibdir.
    That leaves the sitelibdir open for site-local modifications.

    Making packaging easy isn't just a nice idea, either: it gains you wider
    distribution, wider exposure, and more people giving constructive
    criticism. It may be as unpleasant as documentation, but that doesn't
    mean it doesn't need to be done.

    Ari
    Aredridel, Feb 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Aredridel wrote:

    > I've just created packages (including .spec files to be used as
    > templates in other distros) of rake and ruby-dbi for the PLD GNU/Linux
    > distribution. They should be at the builders reasonably quickly, and
    > available for general consumption after that.
    >
    > I also have a plea for package maintainers: Make your packages
    > distribution friendly. Let the distribution build a package as a
    > non-root user -- supporting and documenting a DESTDIR variable,
    > "--destdir" config option or supporting "--prefix" in the install phase
    > is all fine. I'm tired of finding custom install.rb scripts, though,
    > that don't support it, and having to patch the packages before I commit
    > them.
    >
    > Also, one thing to consider: Let the package install into
    > rubylibdir, not just sitelibdir. Many distributions consider it good
    > form to put distro-supplied packages in a "System" directory -- for
    > perl, this is the vendor_perl branch; in ruby, this is the rubylibdir.
    > That leaves the sitelibdir open for site-local modifications.
    >
    > Making packaging easy isn't just a nice idea, either: it gains you wider
    > distribution, wider exposure, and more people giving constructive
    > criticism. It may be as unpleasant as documentation, but that doesn't
    > mean it doesn't need to be done.
    >
    > Ari
    >
    >


    Documentation shouldn't be considered unpleasent. If you go to the
    trouble of making something to share, it's common curtesy to at least
    give basic instructions on it's use. Yes most of us are programmers not
    tech writers, but we should take pride in explaining what our creation
    is capable of.

    Charlie
    Charles Comstock, Feb 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Aredridel

    Aredridel Guest

    Docs [Was Regarding PLD RPMs of rake and ruby-dbi and a plea to packagers]

    On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 09:44:50AM +0900, Charles Comstock wrote:
    > > ... It may be as unpleasant as documentation, but that doesn't mean
    > > it doesn't need to be done.

    >
    > Documentation shouldn't be considered unpleasent. If you go to the
    > trouble of making something to share, it's common curtesy to at least
    > give basic instructions on it's use. Yes most of us are programmers
    > not tech writers, but we should take pride in explaining what our
    > creation is capable of.


    Wholeheartedly agreed.

    Thankfully, we have some very fine (and unobtrusive) tools with Ruby:
    rdoc is a piece of work whose subtlety I'd love to see imitated.

    In addition to rather liking test-first coding (which I'm just now
    getting into), I like document-first coding. Write tests (expect them
    to fail), write docs (expect them to be more complete than the code),
    then write code that fulfils the tests and matches the docs.

    I think that's why the Exim MTA is as successful as it is. In addition
    to being wildly flexible, it's well-documented, because it's spec'd in
    advance. It should be a standard practice, and is one I'm trying to
    develop in myself.

    Ari
    Aredridel, Feb 23, 2004
    #3
  4. Re: Docs [Was Regarding PLD RPMs of rake and ruby-dbi and a plea to packagers]

    On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:18:14PM +0900, Aredridel wrote:
    > In addition to rather liking test-first coding (which I'm just now
    > getting into), I like document-first coding. Write tests (expect them
    > to fail), write docs (expect them to be more complete than the code),
    > then write code that fulfils the tests and matches the docs.


    Time to write RWEB? :p

    --
    _ _
    | |__ __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __
    | '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \
    | |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
    |_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
    Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
    batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

    "You, sir, are nothing but a pathetically lame salesdroid!
    I fart in your general direction!"
    -- Randseed on #Linux
    Mauricio Fernández, Feb 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Re: Docs [Was Regarding PLD RPMs of rake and ruby-dbi and a plea to packagers]

    Funny you should mention that. I've been looking over the
    CWEB syntax thinking about writing a simple tangle/weave system
    in and for ruby as an exercise. I've always been interested in
    literate programming, never really done anything with it except
    read the docs.

    I was thinking about something modelled on cweb as the source files,
    xhtml as the weave output, and ruby as the tangle output.

    Larry

    On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 08:23:46PM +0900, Mauricio Fernndez wrote:
    > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:18:14PM +0900, Aredridel wrote:
    > > In addition to rather liking test-first coding (which I'm just now
    > > getting into), I like document-first coding. Write tests (expect them
    > > to fail), write docs (expect them to be more complete than the code),
    > > then write code that fulfils the tests and matches the docs.

    >
    > Time to write RWEB? :p
    >
    > --
    > _ _
    > | |__ __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __
    > | '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \
    > | |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
    > |_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
    > Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
    > batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
    >
    > "You, sir, are nothing but a pathetically lame salesdroid!
    > I fart in your general direction!"
    > -- Randseed on #Linux
    Larry Felton Johnson, Feb 27, 2004
    #5
  6. Re: Docs [Was Regarding PLD RPMs of rake and ruby-dbi and a pleato packagers]

    Larry Felton Johnson wrote:

    > Funny you should mention that. I've been looking over the
    > CWEB syntax thinking about writing a simple tangle/weave system
    > in and for ruby as an exercise. I've always been interested in
    > literate programming, never really done anything with it except
    > read the docs.
    >
    > I was thinking about something modelled on cweb as the source files,
    > xhtml as the weave output, and ruby as the tangle output.
    >
    > Larry
    >
    > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 08:23:46PM +0900, Mauricio Fernndez wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:18:14PM +0900, Aredridel wrote:
    >>
    >>>In addition to rather liking test-first coding (which I'm just now
    >>>getting into), I like document-first coding. Write tests (expect them
    >>>to fail), write docs (expect them to be more complete than the code),
    >>>then write code that fulfils the tests and matches the docs.

    >>
    >>Time to write RWEB? :p
    >>
    >>--

    Umm isn't RDOC basically RWEB? I mean it's not really fancy as far as
    the weave output but I mean it's pretty similar really. It's just the
    overall weave output isn't designed to be read in book form. You could
    just make a new formatter for RDOC that was more article/bookish.

    Charles Comstock
    Charles Comstock, Feb 27, 2004
    #6
  7. Re: Docs [Was Regarding PLD RPMs of rake and ruby-dbi and a plea to packagers]

    On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:29:28 +0900, Larry Felton Johnson <> wrote:
    > Funny you should mention that. I've been looking over the
    > CWEB syntax thinking about writing a simple tangle/weave system
    > in and for ruby as an exercise. I've always been interested in
    > literate programming, never really done anything with it except
    > read the docs.


    Just for info: noweb is a language independent LP system that'll work
    just fine for Ruby. However, development of noweb seems nonexistent
    these days --- Norman started a version 3 reimplementation in Lua in
    1999, but it didn't seem to go anywhere. A re-implementation in Ruby
    would be nice. See: http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~nr/noweb/

    regards,
    andrew

    --
    Andrew L. Johnson http://www.siaris.net/
    The generation of random numbers is too
    important to be left to chance.
    Andrew Johnson, Feb 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Re: Docs [Was Regarding PLD RPMs of rake and ruby-dbi and a plea to packagers]

    I'll take a closer look at RDOC. If it meets the following
    criteria or could be extended to meet those criteria it may be
    the path of least resistance:

    # 1) The high-level language code and the system
    # documentation of the program come from the
    # same set of source files.

    # 2)The documentation and high-level language
    # code are complementary and should address
    # the same elements of the algorithms being
    # written.

    # 3)The literate program should have logical
    # subdivisions. Knuth called these modules or
    # sections.

    # 4) The system should be presented in an order
    # based upon logical considerations rather than
    # syntactic constraints.

    # 5)The documentation should include an examination
    # of alternative solutions and should suggest
    # future maintenance problems and extensions.

    # 6) The documentation should include a description
    # of the problem and its solution. This
    # should include all aids such as mathematics
    # and graphics that enhance communication of
    # the problem statement and the understanding
    # of its challenge.

    # 7)Cross references, indices, and different fonts for
    # text, high-level language keywords, variable
    # names, and literals should be reasonably
    # automatic and obvious in the source and the
    # documentation.

    The list above is from from Bart Child's article
    "Literate Programming, a Practioner's View" which can be found at

    http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb13-3/childs.pdf

    Larry

    On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 05:05:32PM +0900, Charles Comstock wrote:
    > Larry Felton Johnson wrote:
    >
    > >Funny you should mention that. I've been looking over the
    > >CWEB syntax thinking about writing a simple tangle/weave system
    > >in and for ruby as an exercise. I've always been interested in
    > >literate programming, never really done anything with it except
    > >read the docs.
    > >
    > >I was thinking about something modelled on cweb as the source files,
    > >xhtml as the weave output, and ruby as the tangle output.
    > >
    > >Larry
    > >
    > >On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 08:23:46PM +0900, Mauricio Fernndez wrote:
    > >
    > >>On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:18:14PM +0900, Aredridel wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>In addition to rather liking test-first coding (which I'm just now
    > >>>getting into), I like document-first coding. Write tests (expect them
    > >>>to fail), write docs (expect them to be more complete than the code),
    > >>>then write code that fulfils the tests and matches the docs.
    > >>
    > >>Time to write RWEB? :p
    > >>
    > >>--

    > Umm isn't RDOC basically RWEB? I mean it's not really fancy as far as
    > the weave output but I mean it's pretty similar really. It's just the
    > overall weave output isn't designed to be read in book form. You could
    > just make a new formatter for RDOC that was more article/bookish.
    >
    > Charles Comstock
    Larry Felton Johnson, Feb 27, 2004
    #8
  9. Re: Docs [Was Regarding PLD RPMs of rake and ruby-dbi and a plea to packagers]

    I haven't looked at noweb, but it's actually on my reading
    list, since my reading list is basically from these two pages
    on one of the Literate Programming web sites plus Knuth's
    book.

    http://www.literateprogramming.com/farticles.html
    http://www.literateprogramming.com/fmanuals.html

    I haven't gotten far enough along on the list to know
    what the capabilities of all the different tools are.
    It would be nice if both the tangle and the weave
    portions of whatever tool I settled on were retargetable
    (in other words in addition to adding languages one
    could use whatever markup or formatting language was
    to the environment).

    I'm not overly ambitious with this idea (that is, it wasn't
    my plan to try to foist a whole programming approach along
    with its particular tools onto the ruby community before I've
    programmed in that language long enough to be able to build
    simple conditional statements without looking at a manual).
    A round of documentation rewriting at my workplace got me interested
    in approaches to documentation, so I was taking a fresh look
    at literate programming. At the same time I had begun tinkering with
    ruby again and had the thought

    "Aha! I'm looking at literate programming plus I'm looking at a
    language which is new to me. Why don't I mock up some tools for
    literate programming in that language? It'll advance my understanding
    of both the language and literate programming".


    Larry




    On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 04:59:57PM +0900, Andrew Johnson wrote:
    > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:29:28 +0900, Larry Felton Johnson <> wrote:
    > > Funny you should mention that. I've been looking over the
    > > CWEB syntax thinking about writing a simple tangle/weave system
    > > in and for ruby as an exercise. I've always been interested in
    > > literate programming, never really done anything with it except
    > > read the docs.

    >
    > Just for info: noweb is a language independent LP system that'll work
    > just fine for Ruby. However, development of noweb seems nonexistent
    > these days --- Norman started a version 3 reimplementation in Lua in
    > 1999, but it didn't seem to go anywhere. A re-implementation in Ruby
    > would be nice. See: http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~nr/noweb/
    >
    > regards,
    > andrew
    >
    > --
    > Andrew L. Johnson http://www.siaris.net/
    > The generation of random numbers is too
    > important to be left to chance.
    Larry Felton Johnson, Feb 27, 2004
    #9
  10. Re: Docs [Was Regarding PLD RPMs of rake and ruby-dbi and a plea to packagers]

    On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 04:59:57PM +0900, Andrew Johnson wrote:

    > Just for info: noweb is a language independent LP system that'll work
    > just fine for Ruby. However, development of noweb seems nonexistent
    > these days --- Norman started a version 3 reimplementation in Lua in
    > 1999, but it didn't seem to go anywhere. A re-implementation in Ruby
    > would be nice. See: http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~nr/noweb/
    >
    > regards,
    > andrew


    I read through the following article on noweb this morning

    http://tex.loria.fr/litte/ieee.pdf

    and the approach definitely looks promising.
    The "simplified" part of his approach is one of the things I was interested
    in pursuing.

    Larry
    Larry Felton Johnson, Feb 27, 2004
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. spiderman_astig
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    9,556
    Ray Andraka
    Feb 6, 2004
  2. Garry
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    348
    Garry
    Jan 18, 2005
  3. Stani
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    279
    Stani
    Jul 15, 2005
  4. Tobias Luetke

    Running tests via rake. Plea for fix.

    Tobias Luetke, Jan 28, 2005, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    94
    Jamis Buck
    Jan 29, 2005
  5. peppermonkey
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    225
    Gregory Brown
    Feb 10, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page