On 17 November 2012 21:34, V=EDt Ondruch <v.ondruch / gmail.com> wrote:
> Dne 17.11.2012 21:19, Aaron Patterson napsal(a):
>
>> Again, doesn't help with the problems we're having.
>
>
> I don't understand what problems. Was this issue triggered by
> [ruby-core:49416]? May be there could be better error message then
>
> /test_gem_command_manager.rb:
> cannot load such file -- psych
>
>
> Also the if the point
>
> However, I'm able to build and install `ruby`
> without `libyaml-dev`
>
> made there is valid, how it comes that the build does not fail if the
> libyaml is not present on the system, while it seems to be hard dependenc=
y
> of some officially supported Ruby feature?
>
> Vit

Agreed, it does not make sense to me to bundle to avoid this problem.
They are already many other dependencies which are of course not bundled.
`rvm requirements` lists amongst others readline, iconv, zlib,
libyaml, libffi, openssl.
I would be for a failing build if libyaml is not present (except if
explicitly specified, like --disable-libyaml), or a very visible
warning at least, since it is a dependency of a standard library
always installed by default (rubygems).
I always thought missing extensions due to missing libraries were too
hard to notice in the build process, maybe a good summary of what was
built and what failed at the end would solve that?