Lucas Nussbaum escreveu:
> On 08/11/12 at 02:33 +0100, Antonio Terceiro wrote:Regardless of how we feel about circular (build) dependencies, I think
> > Lucas Nussbaum escreveu:
> > > > installing default gems: /tmp/r/lib/ruby/gems/2.0.0 (cache, doc, gems, specifications)
> > > > bigdecimal 1.1.0
> > > > io-console 0.3
> > > > json 1.7.1
> > > > minitest 3.4.0
> > > > psych 1.3.4
> > > > rake 0.9.2.2
> > > > rdoc 3.9.4
> > > > test-unit 2.0.0.0
> > >
> > > Addressing that will be interesting ;)
> > > Maybe we could just drop those bundled gems and depend on our own
> > > packages. (I don't mean that we should 'cripple' ruby by removing part
> > > of what is shipped by default -- I just mean that those gems should come
> > > from the standalone packages rather than the bundled versions)
> >
> > We need to be careful to avoid circular dependencies there - those
> > packages would need to depend on a ruby interpreter, but the ruby 2.0
> > interpreter would depend on them.
>
> Mmh, I've never been very clear on whether circular dependencies are
> actually that bad. In that case they would be pretty limited.
we should diverge as little as possible from upstream, i.e. letting the
interpreter package embed the gems it was design to, and allowing
standalone packages of those gems to override the pre-bundled gems -
just like it would work with outside of Debian.