From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...>
Date: 2010-09-16T14:59:20+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:32414] Re: Can we convert the standard library to gems?

On 16/09/10 at 11:02 +0900, James Cox wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2010, Marcus Rueckert <darix@opensu.se> wrote:
> > On 2010-09-16 03:36:56 +0900, James Cox wrote:
> >> �I don't believe the issue is as grave as you suggest. there's no
> >> reason that stdlib needs to be at the same release version as ruby; it
> >> just needs to be clear what the cutoff points are. However, if i am
> >> wrong, the fix is simple: specify to each stdlib maintainer that they
> >> are not at liberty to update release versions outside of ruby, other
> >> than to specify patch level releases until the newer ruby is made.
> >
> > this is going to work well....
> >
> 
> I personally would prefer that stdlib were able to manage revisions by
> themselves; it'll be much simpler to see what libraries are
> languishing and which flourish. Perhaps ruby gems could store a
> manifest of known revisions for each release? Eric or others who hack
> on gems may be able to better comment.
> 
> Still, the idea is that it should be possible to see each stdlib
> individually must be what's important:  being able to distinguish
> individual packages and make it possible for distributors and
> implementors to roll their own rubies with a common core and custom
> library.

Wouldn't custom rubies and custom stdlibs give the impression that a
distributor is distributing a crippled version of ruby, if the
distributor provides only the core, and each stdlib library as a
separate package?

- Lucas