Benoit Daloze

Would it be possible to expand the references inline like detailed in https://github.com/ruby/rdoc/issues/1097#issuecomment-2517618447 ? That would make ri usable again for such cases and be very similar to what used...

It's a good point. Since I never saw that expanded document with `ri` I forgot what it looks like. IMO https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/packed_data_rdoc.html is near unusable, no matter where or in what...

This seems to work nicely, thanks!

Ref: PR to add back the concise table for pack/unpack docs: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/12349

Right, that part is outdated, `--language:ruby` is a legacy macro and that's gone now. These days, you would get the jars from Maven for `org.graalvm.polyglot:ruby`, and either use the Native...

If RubyGems adds something like this, it seems the perfect occasion to also add the possibility to specify that a binary gem is for a given RUBY_ENGINE (e.g. ruby/jruby/truffleruby). cc...

I think it's the same concept as existing precompiled/binary gems, I would phrase it like "Improved platform and ABI support for precompiled gems".

Link to the discussion on the CRuby bug tracker: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21042

Yes, RVM does not support TruffleRuby in JVM mode currently and given the [complexity of RVM](https://eregon.me/blog/2021/06/04/review-of-ruby-installers-and-switchers.html#rvm) I didn't add it. Although of course someone else could try adding it if...

Not sure, no, there is definitely something hanging there. The only output we see is: ``` 2024-08-28T10:58:52.7217665Z ##[group]Run bundle exec rake test 2024-08-28T10:58:52.7218348Z bundle exec rake test 2024-08-28T10:58:52.7393963Z shell: /usr/bin/bash...