On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 07:59:17PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 19:27:23 +0100, Oliver Andrich wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:13:21PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > As a side-note, the package ought not install into Ruby site locations > > > anyway. It should install into rubylibdir, i.e. > > > > > > $ ruby -rrbconfig -e 'puts Config::CONFIG["rubylibdir"]' > > > /usr/lib/ruby/1.8 > > > > > > as that, just like Perl vendor locations, allows site installations > > > which override Fedora-shipped packages. > > > > Well, the official fedora package defines this directory and it is the > > location where 3rd party modules have to go. libdir is the location of > > ruby'S own stdlib and nothing else. > > Well, I disagree. And it would not be the first time. Fedora.us > also started packaging Perl modules into site locations and then > we agreed on installing into vendor locations. IIRC, the Debian > Project even moves Ruby's site install paths to /usr/local and > disallows packagers to install into them. Well, I won't comment on Debian stuff, cause I have severe issues with the Debian way to handle some packages. The reason why I moved to Fedora are issues like that with Debian. My point of view is, that ruby doesn'T provide any elaborate mechanism like perl for managing the site dir. But I also think, that ruby people have thought carefully about it, and choosed site_ruby with care. Just to seperate the standard and core lib from 3rd party libs. Well, and as soon as we are integrating ruby gems, it will add another location for libraries to the portfolio. So, you suggest to organize things as in Debian? Best regards, Oliver -- Oliver Andrich --- oliver.andrich@xxxxxxxxx --- http://roughbook.de/ -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
