> We have _no_ direct dependency on minitest, it is brought in _through_ > a direct dependency, therefore it does not belong in our Gemfile. If > anything, bundler should include it in the lock file, and if it did > that, I would not be opposed. I can see no reason why a ruby project > should add specific dependencies for a given OS/distribution who > happens to have chosen a different way to release versions of things. > Should the ruby world decide the start using an unbundled version of > the standard libraries, that is fine, and bundler would get updated > to reflect those dependencies. In the meantime, if a platform like > fedora needs it to be explicit, that should be immediately obvious > when someone goes to package a gem/project. Again, we do not > explicitly depend on this library, so even in the fedora case, that > dependency would have been resolved in the packaging for the given > library (think this was active*something that needed it). > > -j
Allowing developers to use bundler / rvm will streamline development, but requiring modules to be packaged in rpms would greatly assist us and lessen the burden during releases and help with testing / QE / other integration into existing established infrastructures. Relaxing the restriction of the upstream project so as to not couple ourselves with the fedora release cycle would be fine so long as we make our best effort to still maintain and maximize compatibility. We should prioritize our supported platforms and efforts to streamline the development, verification, and release cycles for most individuals. -Mo
