Hello,

2012/11/18 Benoit Daloze <eregontp / gmail.com>:
> 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.

There are three practical reasons why libyaml should be bundled:

  - rubygems strongly depends on libyaml.
  - libyaml is not so popular. compared to readline, zlib, openssl, etc.
    I think there are many platforms that has no libyaml.
  - libyaml is actually so small.

I can understand the policy of the Linux distribution.  But, Ruby source
distribution is mainly used for those who intend to use Ruby with no
packaing system.

Note that there is a precident: nkf stdlib actually bundles the whole
source code of nkf project.


Vit, can you create a distro package of Ruby depending on libyaml package,
rathar than bundling it, even if Ruby source distribution bundles libyaml?
I'm sorry to trouble you, but I would greatly appreciate your cooperation.


> On 17 November 2012 21:34, V=EDt Ondruch <v.ondruch / gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't understand what problems. Was this issue triggered by
>> [ruby-core:49416]? May be there could be better error message then

BTW: The trigger is a draft of 2.0.0 upgrade notes that I'm writing:

http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/200UpgradeNotesDraft

It shows a cumbersome process to install libyaml to use rubygems.
I asked Aaron to check the process, and he counter-proposed bundling
libyaml.

--=20
Yusuke Endoh <mame / tsg.ne.jp>