On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Magnus Holm <judofyr / gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 14:45, Intransition <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Oct 25, 1:58am, Lucas Nussbaum <lu... / lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:
>>> Issue #5481 has been updated by Lucas Nussbaum.
>>>
>>> (With my Debian hat)
>>> I don't really like the plan of having releases of libraries both with the interpreter and as separate gems. Duplicating distribution paths for libraries will make things very complex since there would be no single "latest version" of a given library. We already have that problem with rubygems due to its bundling in 1.9.
>>>
>>> Instead, I would prefer a plan where the interpreter no longer releaseswith the stdlib, but just releases with a "core lib". Then the user would install the stdlib as a set of gems.
>>>
>>> One benefit that this would bring is that interpreter implementations could all use the same stdlib. Currently jruby and rubinius are both laggingbehind in that regard. This would reinforce an healthy competition betweenimplementations, and make shipping several implems easier to support.
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> I mean, how hard is it to add `gem install stdlib` to end of `make
>> install` routine? Where `stdlib` would be an (otherwise empty) meta-
>> package with dependencies to all standard gems.
>
> That would require internet connection. I think you should be able to
> install a complete version of Ruby without an internet connection.

I think it's time to accept that we are in an Internet world.

> So we still have to ship the gems with the release, which is what
> Lucas doesn't likeˇÄ

Moreover, it is possible to package up a set of gems into a ship-able
and install-able bundle for those who really need that.