Dne 18.11.2012 15:41, Yusuke Endoh napsal(a):
> 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.

No doubt about it.

>    - libyaml is not so popular. compared to readline, zlib, openssl, etc.
>      I think there are many platforms that has no libyaml.

How that come that somebody could not have libyaml on some platform but 
would be able to compile libyaml bundled with psych? This argument seems 
moot. Or are you going to fork libyaml because of that?

>    - libyaml is actually so small.

It is even smaller if you don't bundle it and use the system one :)

>
> 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.

Who are you referring to? If there is somebody like that, he/she should 
have probably some level of understanding, because it will be needed 
sooner or later.

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

I'll definitely look at nkf. Thanks for the tip. Also note that there 
are other bundled code, such as rubygems, rake, rdoc, oniguruma, 
minitest. But I am not sure why Ruby should use bad examples as a 
justification for bundling.

>
>
> 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.

If the implementation will follow proposal 1) from Jeremy, then probably 
quite easily. But this is not technical question, if I can or cannot.

>
>
>> On 17 November 2012 21:34, V?t 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:

Thank you for explanation :)

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

I like this guide

>
> It shows a cumbersome process to install libyaml to use rubygems.

It is as cumbersome as compile Ruby from sources. If you don't like 
cumbersome processes, then there are packaging systems, rubyinstaller, 
RVM ...

> I asked Aaron to check the process, and he counter-proposed bundling
> libyaml.
>