On 10/23/2009 12:24 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 10/23/2009 11:29 AM, David Lutterkort wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 17:13 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I did a blog post[2] on this subject, showing off a local build of a compat-ruby-1.9.1 package I've made. I'm still working on some of the other troubles all of that introduces, but I wanted to let you know where I'm thinking it could be heading towards.
Does that mean that you'd also want to change the packaging guidelines so that rpm's installs into the vendor directories rather than site ? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but think we should calrify that.
Agreed. I'm trying to follow what Perl does here, for the largest part, as it made extreme sense to me. I think it's a major improvement overall.
A correction on what I previously said;
/usr/local/ is -at least in the Perl plans- to include the "site" specific directory.
So, the searchpath would be like (if the Perl plans are followed):
/usr/local/lib{,64}/ruby/1.9.1 /usr/local/lib{,64}/ruby/ /usr/local/share/ruby/1.9.1 /usr/local/share/ruby
^^ (no site_ruby) because that is redundant)
/usr/lib{,64}/ruby/1.9.1 /usr/lib{,64}/ruby /usr/share/ruby/1.9.1 /usr/share/ruby
^^ (no vendor_ruby because that is redundant)
In fact, the plans for Perl include dropping the version number altogether;
/usr/local/lib{,64}/ruby/ /usr/local/share/ruby /usr/lib{,64}/ruby /usr/share/ruby
Now this looks extremely clean!
compat-packages could just:
/usr/local/lib{,64}/ruby/<version> /usr/local/share/ruby/<version> /usr/lib{,64}/ruby/<version> /usr/share/ruby/<version>
How does this look?
Where would gems go? From packages, of course, outside of /usr/local/. But where would "gem install" gems go? I'd say /usr/local/, but what do you think?
-- Jeroen