HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
thwarted
gem2deb
Ruby2009–2011
thwarted / gem2deb

gem2deb

Takes a URL to a .gem or tar'ed gem and does the brute force work of converting it to a .deb package

3Distinct people
4Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
28GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Takes a URL to a .gem or tar'ed gem and does the brute force work of converting it to a .deb package

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month4 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2009-05-22 19:30:34 UTC to 2011-01-04 07:01:49 UTC.

012009-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2009-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsMay 20092009-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2009-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2009-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2009-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2009-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2009-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2009-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2009-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2009-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2009-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2009-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2009-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2009-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsMar 20102010-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2010-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2010-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2010-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2010-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2011-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJan 2011

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
May 20092009-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2009-06-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jun 20092009-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2009-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20092009-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2009-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20092009-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2009-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20092009-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2009-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20092009-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2009-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20092009-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2009-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20092009-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20102010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20102010-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20102010-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20102010-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20102010-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20102010-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20102010-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-08-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Aug 20102010-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20102010-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-10-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Oct 20102010-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20102010-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2010-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20102010-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20112011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2011-02-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

4 sources
I don't mind things having their own packaging solutions, because it does get over a hurdle of trying to use things that have broken or non-existent package management systems (I'm looking at you Windows and OSX). What I do mind is when there's not an obvious way to work with the language's provided packaging system to make rpms or debs. Or the language's packaging system actively works against other packaging systems because it's, uh, "unpythonic" or it's just not way it's done in our environment because we're special. The whole idea of a "this is a pythonic packaging system" seems to say "all other previous packaging systems python has used have been unpythonic", which wasn't the case when the previous packaging systems were released -- everyone claims theirs is the best. It's good to have the ability to install things without the s
Read the rest
ystem packager (say, in another directory for testing or development purposes), but when it comes time to productionize something, the language's library management needs to work with the system packager. I think ruby is especially bad in this regard. There's some mindset that seems to say everything should be manageable as if it was a gem, even if it wasn't installed via gem. gem seems to be used to manage dependencies within the library itself, which breaks if the library itself isn't managed with gem. So you sometimes need to fake it (admittedly, I have not installed ruby libs in a while, but I had to make http://github.com/thwarted/gem2deb to make this mildly more manageable, but that's still only a 90% solution and that last 10% is particularly annoying). perl is an example of one that gets it close. In most cases, you can do the build and stop before the install. Then the contents of the blib directory are the entire contents that needs to be installed, so you can just package that up -- this makes it compatible with all popular system packaging systems. And even then, we have cpan2rpm that does the heavy lifting of scripting finding the package on CPAN. Package management is pretty much a solved problem, and it's solved for the general case of putting files in place and asserting (and resolving) dependencies -- assuming all the dependencies are packagable/available in packages (which is easy to achieve if things can be easily packaged). If you think you need more than that, it might be time to revisit how your libraries are written and how your language uses libraries. If it's anything more than "are the files in a place where the language can find them", it may be time to revisit it.
In Bento, a pythonic packaging solution for Python software

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.