[#83096] File.setuid? on IO (Re: [ruby-cvs:67289] normal:r60108 (trunk): file.c: release GVL in File.{setuid?, setgid?, sticky?}) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
On 2017/10/04 8:47, normal@ruby-lang.org wrote:
5 messages
2017/10/04
[#83100] Re: File.setuid? on IO (Re: [ruby-cvs:67289] normal:r60108 (trunk): file.c: release GVL in File.{setuid?, setgid?, sticky?})
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/10/04
Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#83105] Re: File.setuid? on IO (Re: [ruby-cvs:67289] normal:r60108 (trunk): file.c: release GVL in File.{setuid?, setgid?, sticky?})
— Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>
2017/10/04
On 2017/10/04 15:55, Eric Wong wrote:
[#83107] Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes? — Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@...>
Hello,
9 messages
2017/10/04
[#83113] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— "Urabe, Shyouhei" <shyouhei@...>
2017/10/05
This has been requested countless times, then rejected each and every time.
[#83129] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@...>
2017/10/05
Sorry I didn't found it on the core mail list's archive.
[#83138] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— "Urabe, Shyouhei" <shyouhei@...>
2017/10/06
Ruby has not been made of popular votes so far. You have to show us
[#83149] Re: Alias Enumerable#include? to Enumerable#includes?
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/10/06
Alberto Almagro <albertoalmagro@gmail.com> wrote:
[#83200] [Ruby trunk Feature#13996] [PATCH] file.c: apply2files releases GVL — normalperson@...
Issue #13996 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
4 messages
2017/10/10
[ruby-core:83611] [Ruby trunk Bug#14065] Two categories of default gems?
From:
duerst@...
Date:
2017-10-30 04:58:43 UTC
List:
ruby-core #83611
Issue #14065 has been updated by duerst (Martin D端rst).
MSP-Greg (Greg L) wrote:
> You're probably already aware,
I guessed.
> for those not, first set are 'pure ruby' gems, the second set are 'extension' gems, which require compiling.
Okay, then what about
'installing default pure ruby gems' and 'installing default extension gems'. Another solution may be to remove the 'extensions, ' text inside the parentheses in the first group.
Yet another alternative is to have just a single list.
----------------------------------------
Bug #14065: Two categories of default gems?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14065#change-67633
* Author: duerst (Martin D端rst)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)
* Target version:
* ruby -v: ruby 2.5.0dev (2017-10-29 trunk 60536) [x86_64-cygwin]
* Backport: 2.3: UNKNOWN, 2.4: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
When I make and install Ruby, the output at the end looks as follows:
```
installing default gems: /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.5.0 (build_info, cache, doc, extensions, gems, specifications)
bundler 1.15.4
...
webrick 1.4.0.beta1
installing default gems: /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.5.0 (build_info, cache, doc, extensions, gems, specifications)
bigdecimal 1.3.2
...
zlib 0.1.0
installing bundled gems: /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.5.0 (build_info, cache, doc, extensions, gems, specifications)
did_you_mean-1.1.2.gem
...
xmlrpc-0.3.0.gem
```
It's unclear what the distinction between the first and the second batch of "default gems" is. I suggest either merging the categories or making clear why there are two categories.
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>