On Jul 28, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! I like the idea, though I'm not sure if it makes
> sense to unpack all the gems we build. Won't it be better to unpack
> just those gems we have patches for, and use the old code path for
> gems that do not require pat
On Jul 28, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
> I've done some more work on the issue of patching rubygems and have
> produced the attached patch. I'm doing some testing by building all the
> rubygem- ports on 9.0 with both 1.9 and 1.8 as default ruby. The build
> with
I've done some more work on the issue of patching rubygems and have
produced the attached patch. I'm doing some testing by building all the
rubygem- ports on 9.0 with both 1.9 and 1.8 as default ruby. The build
with ruby 1.9 finished and the patch has only caused issues building the
