Comment # 6 on bug 1207307 from Robert Frohl

(In reply to Marcus R���ckert from comment #5)
> that would be wrong. the "clean" solution would be to ship mkmf.rb in the
> devel package.

Could you expand on this a bit further, why this would be wrong? 

My thinking(from a user of the ruby library's perspective): I would expect that
what is shipped as part of a package would also work and does not require me to
dig into why a file is not found and also not pulled be the dependencies of the
package either.

Removing mkmf.rb completely from the stdlib rpm would put even more
expectations on the user, to investigate the problem.

From that ease of use/accessibility point of view I would think the below
suggestion is a good middle ground.

(In reply to Robert Frohl from comment #4)
> How about just shipping a additional copy of ruby.h in
> /usr/lib64/ruby/include with the ruby<version> package?

ok, looked a bit further and think the above is actually wrong, as mkmf.rb
comes from another package (ruby<version>-stdlib). The suggestion actually
would be to ship ruby.h  with ruby<version>-stdlib instead.