On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 02:08 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 11/07/2008 02:26 AM +9:00:
> David Lutterkort wrote, at 11/07/2008 01:27 AM +9:00:
>> Yes, that makes perfect sense, and should be required for gem and
>> non-gem packages in the same way.
> Thank you. Again I updated my proposition wiki with reflecting your comment.
> I think the current contents can be included in the formal packaging guidelines.
> (The URL is still:
I moved the wiki to
(old URL will be redirected) and added this to
The example in your draft does not seem to match your proposal. Can you
provide an example to illustrate the new case for "Ruby Gem with
extension libraries written in C"?