On 15 September 2010 16:44, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas / lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:
> 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>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 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.  ¨Β δοξ§βεμιεφτθατ σχιτγθιξτο ηενστθατ αμοξε¬ χουμσομφ>> > my situation.  ¨Βηο αθεαδ®  ¨Βθε ςεαμ γθαξηε ¨ιαξω© νιηθθαππεξθεχε
>> > 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

I believe [B], because we already have [A] for some parts of stdlib.

That is what we are discussing ;)

Regards,
B.D.