On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 11:00 +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 17:08, matt wrote:
> > I wouldn't worry about filing a bug on this.  They made an  
> > architectural
> > decision to  proceed this way on purpose.  They are aware of it being
> > broken up into several units, and a bug report would just be closed  
> > out
> > as not a bug.
> 
> No.  This is a bug.
> 
> It causes confusion for people attempting to use Ruby when their  
> installation is broken.  People attempting to use Ruby shouldn't have  
> to post an email to this list to figure out why they can't do X or Y  
> because some file is missing.
> 
> About 10% of the bugs filed against RubyGems are because some  
> standard part of Ruby wasn't installed by some package manager.  I  
> shouldn't have to deal with those, and neither should this list.
> 
> Breaking up Ruby into pieces is not supported by Ruby's 'make  
> install', so packagers shouldn't break up Ruby into pieces that Ruby  
> library authors can't anticipate.
> 
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's a Bikeshed matter,with
lots of opinions, but with no real result.  Matters like this need to be
taken off-line to another mailing list like ruby-BS ... but that's a
whole 'nother bikeshed issue on this list.  200-300 messages a day and
only 10% make sense... where's the real shame?