From: "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...>
Date: 2007-10-15T23:14:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Eric Hodel wrote:
>> Definitely.  I want to make sure what they call 'tiny library only for
>> finding gems'.  If it means 'RubyGems minus gem command', 0.9.4.5
>> should be enough though I've not yet checked it.  If not?
> 
> Ok.  Please keep me up to date on this.  If 0.9.4.5 is not good enough I
> can explore making it even lighter.

Following is my opinion about enabling rubygems by default.  I posted it
to ruby-dev at [ruby-dev:32061].  It's an awkward translation of mine.

	/	/	/

I don't get response from core team to [ruby-core:12643] so I don't know
what core team calls 'tiny library only for finding gems'.  Here're my
reason for objecting to enable rubygems by default.

1. If 'tiny library only for finding gems' includes replacing
Kernel.require and Kernel.gem method (everything) with diet version.

1-1. RubyGems includes packaging, deployment and feature loading
systems.  I don't think it's bad and it's useful in fact.  But if we let
it be an 'official Ruby language specification' by enabling it by
default, it's not always a good thing.  For example;

1-1-1. It's said that as a packaging and deployment system it interacts
badly with some other existing packaging system.  I heard about it from
an official Ruby package maintainer of Debian.  I know almost nothing
about actual problem but it should not be too late to enable rubygems by
default, after bundling rubygems and seeing how it goes.

1-1-2. As a feature loading system, letting 'multiple versions aware
feature loading' be an official Ruby language specification imposes too
much restriction to unborn feature loading systems.

1-2. Is it possible to call it's not an official Ruby language spec even
if it's enabled by default?

2. If 'tiny library only for finding gems' only includes replacing
Kernel.require (does not include version control feature of RubyGems).
This means that we bundle RubyGems as the packaging and deployment
system of ruby but do not accept it as a feature loading system as is.

2-1. We should not bundle a library this way.  When we think it's good
thing, we should go RubyGems list at first and propose the change.

2-2. Anyway, granting that RubyGems team accepts this proposal, it's too
late for ruby/1.9.1.  From 1.9.2 at best I think.

	/	/	/

Though I didn't write it to ruby-dev, I don't think 2 is acceptable for
RubyGems team.  Gem.activate with version constraints + dependency
control by gem command with .gemspec should be a key advantage feature
of RubyGems I think.  Kernel.require and Kernel.gem both depends
Gem.activate.

It's still ongoing topic on ruby-dev.  I'm waiting for some thoughts on
this topic.

I'll update again.

Regards,
// NaHi

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)

iQEVAwUBRxN1px9L2jg5EEGlAQLeHQf/TXXsEBgDGkdLrLL3wEEQkgwJoH6nPB6t
4Gw+4Std4nP8/K8JysZdaMthqzNoCPK/v468SDZCrNSCd569Jq2nE8SL0jpSx3vj
Wwa9mhewOMID9tCn4R8oPXdllSwEOV9RO2gA+W+2S255jqo9+aCboIcTOkLRAABa
D65CviTsJ1/GUau6U25x8Ka3+5vWOJ+nhYUlVLfruUhStq8xoH2S943NVIWBkb2J
XsM3uPDBSCHEdmNOgN4aHTCKZO3YYFE5/h0KL3ZxTIWRrR/1xxvMf4vlqfLX1/Es
VE3nBQKvGKptHl6YfUqVgP1/s1moAh/OPWP4QcB1gPmzMw1tmHPeGQ==
=ODaz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----