> >> I don't think that the former would be really valuable. Unless the RPM > >> package Ruby would make it easier in some way. > > I am suggesting that "we should rather not mention WASI, because the > > RPM does not actually support it". That is what we did for our > > document about the MJIT in the past in the RHEL side, as the MJIT > > didn't work due to RHEL's hardening setting. Or just add note that > > "the Ruby RPM doesn't support the WebAssemly. If you want to use the > > feature, compile from the source." > > > > I have dropped the section entirely. Because based on your explanation, > I'd say that WebAssembly is currently out of scope, as long as we are > not able to provide the WebAssembly Ruby blob. > > > Thx a lot. Appreciate your help.
OK. That makes sense. Thanks. I think the Ruby wasm's document could be improved. I just sent a PR to improve that. wasm/README.md: Add a note about the Ruby built for wasm. https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/6707 -- Jun | He - Him | Timezone: UTC+1 or 2, Czech Republic See <https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/czech-republic-prague-to-utc> for the timezone. _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
