On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Yusuke ENDOH <mame / tsg.ne.jp> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2010/9/15 James Cox <james / imaj.es>:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei / ruby-lang.org>rote:
>>> 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 thathis 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 whene
>>> drop them from our repo.
>>
>> OK, so i understand that the RM/core are OK with it. Yui - any
>> objections? Matz?
>
>
> I might fail to follow this discussion, but was Marcus's concern
> ([ruby-core:32173]) not a problem? Or just forgotten?

Marcus wrote:

> 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.

I personally don't agree; ruby should be available but it's not always
true that REXML or Pathname should always exist, which is why any
pragmatic programmer would check to ensure they could load it.

Still, i would not be against a separate load directory for stdlib
gems, if only to ensure they don't get lost in the melee of whatever
else is installed.

Either way, the first step must be to create an appropriate gemspec
for each of the stdlib projects..

-james