[ruby-core:32278] Re: Can we convert the standard library to gems?

On 10/09/10 at 02:41 +0900, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 05:26:54AM +0900, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> > On 2010-09-09 02:54:26 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> > > On Sep 8, 2010, at 12:03 PM, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 2010-09-09 01:45:43 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> > > >> Taken from the bundle Nokogiri thread:
> > > >> 
> > > >>> Currently, we're discussing three different topics:
> > > >> 
> > > >>> 3) all stdlib should be converted to gem, or not
> > > >> 
> > > >>> Next, the point 3 should be discussed in another thread.
> > > >>> You can't have it both ways at once.
> > > >> 
> > > >> I guess I'm not understanding.  What are the minuses of Ruby shipping
> > > >> with a set of blessed gems?  I can't think of any.
> > > > 
> > > > well for one ... we would kind of need 2 directories for said gems imho.
> > > > because uninstalling the gems that form the stdlib or a release should
> > > > not be possible.
> > > 
> > > Why?
> > 
> > because a ruby 1.9.3 describes a feature set which includes the stdlib.
> > so when ever ruby -v returns 1.9.3 all the stdlib features should always
> > be available. updating them to a newer version or so is not a problem as
> > you can always say gem "foo", "=x.y", but the x.y from the release
> > should always be available.
> > 
> > otherwise you will get a lot of fun like:
> > "yes i run ruby 1.9.3 on my system"
> > "then you should have rdoc"
> > "uhm I just see my coworker ran gem uninstall rdoc earlier, is that bad?"
> 
> I think this kind of problem already happens today with Debian.  IIRC,
> doing a normal install of Ruby on debian doesn't provide openssl, you
> have to specifically ask for it.

This was true in the past, but is no longer the case.

Please avoid spreading FUD about Ruby and Debian. It just makes our work
less fun than it should be.

- Lucas