On 15/09/10 at 23:26 +0900, James Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei / ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> > How difficult to make myself understood in English.
> >
> > (2010/09/15 2:00), James Cox wrote:
> >>> I've been thinking about it for a few days and suddenly realized that this is
> >>> totally off topic :) I'll cut the thread for it later.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So you now have no blocking reason for not switching to gems?
> >
> > I never have. ?I don't believe that switching to gems, that alone, would solve
> > my situation. ?So go ahead. ?The real change (if any) might happen when we
> > drop them from our repo.
> 
> OK, so i understand that the RM/core are OK with it. Yui - any
> objections? Matz?
> 
> Otherwise i see this as a go, and will work with whoever to gemify all
> the stdlib.

Is the plan:
[A] to also distribute libraries from the stdlib as external gems, while
keeping the stdlib in its current form in the current ruby "source
tarball" ?

[B] to change the content of the ruby "source tarball" to include many
gems instead of the current lib/ directory?

I understood that it was [A], but if it's [B], I think that this has
many implications on packaging work, and should be discussed with
distributors.

- Lucas