From: Aaron Patterson <aaron@...>
Date: 2010-09-11T01:10:40+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:32299] Re: Can we convert the standard library to gems?


--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 02:54:09PM +0900, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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:
> > > >=20
> > > > > On 2010-09-09 01:45:43 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> > > > >> Taken from the bundle Nokogiri thread:
> > > > >>=20
> > > > >>> Currently, we're discussing three different topics:
> > > > >>=20
> > > > >>> 3) all stdlib should be converted to gem, or not
> > > > >>=20
> > > > >>> Next, the point 3 should be discussed in another thread.
> > > > >>> You can't have it both ways at once.
> > > > >>=20
> > > > >> I guess I'm not understanding.  What are the minuses of Ruby shi=
pping
> > > > >> with a set of blessed gems?  I can't think of any.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > well for one ... we would kind of need 2 directories for said gem=
s imho.
> > > > > because uninstalling the gems that form the stdlib or a release s=
hould
> > > > > not be possible.
> > > >=20
> > > > Why?
> > >=20
> > > because a ruby 1.9.3 describes a feature set which includes the stdli=
b.
> > > so when ever ruby -v returns 1.9.3 all the stdlib features should alw=
ays
> > > be available. updating them to a newer version or so is not a problem=
 as
> > > you can always say gem "foo", "=3Dx.y", but the x.y from the release
> > > should always be available.
> > >=20
> > > 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 b=
ad?"
> >=20
> > 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.
>=20
> This was true in the past, but is no longer the case.

Excellent!  I'm glad to hear it!

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

Uh.  Okay?  I didn't know I was spreading FUD, but I will try to stop.
:-(

--=20
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMilh+AAoJEJUxcLy0/6/G8Y4H/1/NfDgRxLfn/ba7BKgT1XPG
DNLvDJ07cyuPLpNoAT2r1lsTQ09a0uaW+gTHOtJwhMWqJNntmhPacro/4TOWgCy0
kmAwErTLFekuh7aB5GbviWtO4JHV3BfoXi+u/3cSnMSxSZU0TygJ0aRi07u2X6MA
xOMHIjWs43S5s9lx8FhXh4WgFT46dNL7VkJTZGWrjKVyfnFhkLphrhC9izmYdMUd
pY9ZtMfO4AvrfbmRb7hO7m5qtHgIH/TpQ1Ahudvd1llT/EUrd3g5fl6BvjlZy6Bm
fU3Mw5giBg5qCSk8utrYkB36wPAG0zfri/4th6RyK43VSEKHDukpTgJP2YJNtUA=
=jIvA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn--