From: Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2007-12-22T05:06:19+09:00
Subject: Re: [Spam] Rake 0.8.0 added to Ruby

On Dec 21, 2007 12:28 PM, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>
> >> I don't mind packaging rake as a preinstalled gem.  In fact, it
> >> makes better sense in my mind as well.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I don't think there's any chance of us
> > installing rake directly into JRuby for a future release; that's
> > just too much hassle and too much bother when we want to upgrade
> > it. rake should be a gem, and as others here have said a whole
> > bunch of other standard libraries should be gems too.
>
> One advantage of having Rake pre-installed is that the other Gems
> could assume its existence during their installation, which might
> make builds more flexible in future.
>
> I feel that the issue is one of impact: do we need mailread.rb
> preinstalled? Probably not. But having Gems, ri, test::unit and rake
> would seem to make sense, as everything else can build from them.

I think there are two separate issues here:

1) What comes pre-installed with Ruby.

2) How is that pre-installed stuff installed.

I thought that the idea was that (much of) the standard library was to
still be pre-installed, but that the installation would be in the form
of gems.  To the programmer it wouldn't look any different, the same
require would load the code.  The advantage is that it decouples the
release cycles of the pieces.


-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/