From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2010-09-17T01:23:43+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:32441] Re: Can we convert the standard library to gems? On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:41 AM, James Tucker wrote: > On 16 Sep 2010, at 10:47, Austin Ziegler wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Lucas Nussbaum >> wrote: >>> On 16/09/10 at 11:02 +0900, James Cox wrote: >>>> 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? >> If other distributors started embracing RubyGems in the same way that >> Apple has, this wouldn't be a problem. > Apple doesn't provide packages, they provide a filesystem snapshot. This is not valid. Apple provided modification patches to the RubyGems team that introduced (more or less) a multi-layered approach to RubyGems (e.g., system, vendor, site, local, user) although Eric took their patch and extended it to be more generic. Apple *uses* RubyGems and provides certain RubyGems by default that users can then upgrade. The statement is, in fact, valid. There are distributors who choose to treat RubyGems as fundamentally incompatible with what they do despite the best efforts of people who are in both community camps. Apple, on the other hand, decided to treat it as something fundamentally adaptable to their own processes even though there's nothing else like it. I see this decision (shipping Ruby's stdlib as gems) as a step in the right direction toward making everything much easier to manage. -a -- Austin Ziegler � halostatue@gmail.com � austin@halostatue.ca http://www.halostatue.ca/ � http://twitter.com/halostatue