On 2010-09-16 01:42:39 +0900, James Cox wrote:
> 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> 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?
> >
> >
> > I might fail to follow this discussion, but was Marcus's concern
> > ([ruby-core:32173]) not a problem? r 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..

and how do you solve the requires part of my posting?

    darix

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