[ruby-core:32432] Re: Can we convert the standard library to gems?

On 16 Sep 2010, at 06:54, elise huard wrote:
> - you could just reference a certain number of gems from ruby config
> files, and the desired/tested version. this way the author can
> continue work independently of ruby-core, and ruby core can also
> approve or certify a certain version for a next release.  There's no
> reason to impose extra versioning IMHO.

This is not true. Users will do `gem update` and shoot themselves in the =
foot. As one of the people who spends a lot of time on user support, I =
would be really really upset to see this kind of dangerous action. As =
Marcus points out, there are even issues with this as an approach for =
versioning between different rubies too. We can protect against a =
/portion/ of this with the required_ruby_version flag in the gemspec, =
but I at present I /believe/ that's only a minimum version marker. For =
this purpose it will need '=3D' or at least '~>' semantics or options to =
be sane.

> - you could also give the choice to the developer whether or not they
> want to install the corresponding gems: an option, the default being
> 'do install', but an advanced user being able to just install minimal
> ruby and mix and match afterwards.

I suggested this originally. Add them to an optional distribution set in =
a directory as actual gem files. When building the "big release" you =
include these gem files in the same way as you include the parser =
builds. In small releases or minimal packages, these could be excluded. =
If users don't want them during the install, they can either remove them =
from the big release package, or add them to the small release package. =
This simple approach also allows users to /add/ to the packages for =
their own needs.=