--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 07:48:04AM +0900, Luis Lavena wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Yehuda Katz <wycats / gmail.com> wrote:
> > We are about to ship a version of Ruby with a built in package manager =
with
> > the following property:
> >
> > Given a package X with dependency Y, attempting to load X might require
> > dependency Z without any warning.
> >
> > There is literally no other distribution of anything that would not con=
sider
> > that property a major show-stopper. I am baffled about how this bug has
> > existed in the tracker so long, is considered "normal" priority, and ha=
s now
> > been bumped to 1.9.3 at the earliest.
>=20
> While I agree with Yehuda that this is a bug that is high priority and
> should be addressed in 1.9.2, I don't agree on the solutions.
>=20
> I still wonder what is the reason of gem_prelude to exist, and if just
> to avoid require 'rubygems', why not document the usage of
> RUBYOPT=3Drubygems and get over it?
>=20
> gem_prelude has not provided any value at all and instead added lot of
> magic to the require process.

I have to agree.  I'm still trying to figure out the utility of
gem_prelude while sifting through code and attempting to resolve this
issue.

Why do we have gem prelude?

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

--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMLm3FAAoJEJUxcLy0/6/GK4cH/2Ie+9TDFBp2ku+eWSMmcX53
m1DqDVO2TUC+iQ/YadoC5VceGVE9vxwFQW2eecc2Nx1nnwObGPi6GYVtyvMYMr+7
BxyzYcI3uZ2g/WbR0w2vkEpZtmbesjXy1Ep2of2Lvl2s5cyypCjz+mNpHr2x20Kc
PBhaLRO1aEl8kp4z46hJQrrffL3IKYcjcV297Of8pfwuxgGFsy+b4jIpfnmNhC6O
L7YLItRv2wzt5tX6Z0HATzY2kfmW1lOXVDdlF3T7d63bEd17TrR5Q5RL/PcE79HR
umjhbV7CWMH9uJaErHt9YgZzD1wCfOnyH+eNtvy9zODqNwdjvNbhbsmlKvD3P30=
=vL5H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j--

On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 07:48:04AM +0900, Luis Lavena wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Yehuda Katz <wycats / gmail.com> wrote:
> > We are about to ship a version of Ruby with a built in package manager =
with
> > the following property:
> >
> > Given a package X with dependency Y, attempting to load X might require
> > dependency Z without any warning.
> >
> > There is literally no other distribution of anything that would not con=
sider
> > that property a major show-stopper. I am baffled about how this bug has
> > existed in the tracker so long, is considered "normal" priority, and ha=
s now
> > been bumped to 1.9.3 at the earliest.
>=20
> While I agree with Yehuda that this is a bug that is high priority and
> should be addressed in 1.9.2, I don't agree on the solutions.
>=20
> I still wonder what is the reason of gem_prelude to exist, and if just
> to avoid require 'rubygems', why not document the usage of
> RUBYOPT=3Drubygems and get over it?
>=20
> gem_prelude has not provided any value at all and instead added lot of
> magic to the require process.

I have to agree.  I'm still trying to figure out the utility of
gem_prelude while sifting through code and attempting to resolve this
issue.

Why do we have gem prelude?

--=20
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMLm3FAAoJEJUxcLy0/6/GK4cH/2Ie+9TDFBp2ku+eWSMmcX53
m1DqDVO2TUC+iQ/YadoC5VceGVE9vxwFQW2eecc2Nx1nnwObGPi6GYVtyvMYMr+7
BxyzYcI3uZ2g/WbR0w2vkEpZtmbesjXy1Ep2of2Lvl2s5cyypCjz+mNpHr2x20Kc
PBhaLRO1aEl8kp4z46hJQrrffL3IKYcjcV297Of8pfwuxgGFsy+b4jIpfnmNhC6O
L7YLItRv2wzt5tX6Z0HATzY2kfmW1lOXVDdlF3T7d63bEd17TrR5Q5RL/PcE79HR
umjhbV7CWMH9uJaErHt9YgZzD1wCfOnyH+eNtvy9zODqNwdjvNbhbsmlKvD3P30=
=vL5H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----