On 2010-09-09 02:54:26 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 12:03 PM, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> 
> > On 2010-09-09 01:45:43 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> >> Taken from the bundle Nokogiri thread:
> >> 
> >>> Currently, we're discussing three different topics:
> >> 
> >>> 3) all stdlib should be converted to gem, or not
> >> 
> >>> Next, the point 3 should be discussed in another thread.
> >>> You can't have it both ways at once.
> >> 
> >> I guess I'm not understanding.  What are the minuses of Ruby shipping
> >> with a set of blessed gems?  I can't think of any.
> > 
> > well for one ... we would kind of need 2 directories for said gems imho.
> > because uninstalling the gems that form the stdlib or a release should
> > not be possible.
> 
> Why?

because a ruby 1.9.3 describes a feature set which includes the stdlib.
so when ever ruby -v returns 1.9.3 all the stdlib features should always
be available. updating them to a newer version or so is not a problem as
you can always say gem "foo", "=x.y", but the x.y from the release
should always be available.

otherwise you will get a lot of fun like:
"yes i run ruby 1.9.3 on my system"
"then you should have rdoc"
"uhm I just see my coworker ran gem uninstall rdoc earlier, is that bad?"

and the versioning part brings up another interesting question:

how to address the "ruby 1.9.3 version" of the gem if you have a newer
version of the gem installed? require "foo" would get me the latest
version normally. 'gem "foo", "=1.9.3"'? that sounds awkward.

just some thoughts

    darix

-- 
           openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux
               openSUSE is good for you
                   www.opensuse.org