Ruby 1.9.1 (or possibly 1.9.2)

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

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