Samuel Giddins
Samuel Giddins
I agree with drbrain on this -- yes, it's the most work, but it's better than allowing something broken to happen. I think we'd accept a PR implementing this :)
We should consider doing this for RubyGems 3, I agree.
I actually already implemented support for this in the resolver, but the major hurdles are backwards compatibility and integration with the multiple index formats currently used by rubygems and bundler.
@chrismo optional / "weak" dependencies haven't been merged yet
We went that route in CocoaPods (subspecs) and supporting them has been .... difficult. Too many edge cases.
The route of specs being able to specify "optional features". https://guides.cocoapods.org/syntax/podspec.html#subspec