On 10/15/07, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi <nakahiro / sarion.co.jp> wrote:
> Yes. Generally we committers need to keep the stable branch "stable"
> (there's no actual svn branch for 1.9 though). Release maintainer will
> restrict incompatible change of the bundled version of Rake. (feature
> adding must be allowed as far as it's compatible with former
> versions.) And when an user installs a new version of Rake with
> RubyGems, the user cannot activate the new gem without declaring 'gem
> "rake"' explicitly.

That's a problem, since most people don't work with Rake as a library,
but as a binary. There's no viable way to do "gem 'rake'" from the
command-line.

I think that the stub that gets installed into Ruby's bin/ directory
needs to be either (a) a different name or (b) smart enough to try to
grab a RubyGems version before using the default installed version.

If Ruby's bundled version of Rake includes bin/rake, then what will
happen when I try to install the RubyGems version (since the RubyGems
version won't own the already-existing file?).

If it's primarily for build-time, then it may be possible to have both
an unbundled version (used only for building) and the gem-bundled
version at install-time. But even that won't make, say, Debian
maintainers happy who are probably maintaining Rake as a wholly separate
package (which would lead to the same problem with Debian that Ruby has
had in the past when it changes what's shipped with Ruby).

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin / zieglers.ca