Issue #6124 has been updated by Vit Ondruch.


Hiroshi Nakamura wrote:
> I wrote some existing issues of "fake gem" at https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/5481#note-1 which is excerpted from https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/StdlibGem.
> Please let us know at #5481 when you find additional issue of existing "fake gem".  This must be fixed as "default gem", the word I introduced for expressing expected behavior, that is almost the same thing as "fake gem" :)

Hiroshi,

I am aware of #5481, you can notice my comments there. However, the "fake gems" or "spec-only gems" how you call it are biting right now as I shown above.

So I would like to see (1) removed the "spec-only gems" in Ruby 1.9.3, since I can't see benefit in current state, or (2) make "default gems" from the "spec-only" gems right now for Ruby 1.9.3.

I prefer (2) and we actually do it already in Fedora 17 [1].

[1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=ruby.git;a=blob;f=ruby.spec;hb=HEAD#l381
----------------------------------------
Bug #6124: What is the purpose of "fake" gems in Ruby
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6124

Author: Vit Ondruch
Status: Open
Priority: Normal
Assignee: Eric Hodel
Category: 
Target version: 
ruby -v: ruby 1.9.3p0 (2011-10-30) [x86_64-linux]


As I tried to point out in #6123, the "fake" gems which are distributed with Ruby breaks user's expectations. The following example should fail:

$ ruby --disable-gems -e "puts require('bigdecimal')"
true

However, it is not failing. Could you please enlighten me what is the purpose of fake gem then? Even if you install updated BigDecimal from rubygems.org, the bundled version will won unless you use "gem 'bidgecimal'" somewhere in the code. This makes no sense.

Don't take me wrong, I am big fan of gemified stdlib #5481, however this is not the way how it should be done.


-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/