> Neither is ideal, but I prefer the first option a bit. If somebody needs the documentation, it can be generated explicitly (gem rdoc).
3) Fixing the issue by yourself and sending the pull-request to rubygems project You asked the upstream today, then if they are stumbling to fix it, "3)" is a good way isn't it to promote fixing the issue isn't it? Jun On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Dne 20.12.2017 v 17:11 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >> >> Dne 19.12.2017 v 19:19 Jun Aruga napsal(a): >> >>>> 2) If "gem install" as root still works the same. >>> "gem list" result is same for regular user's situation. >>> >>> I found the difference of the behavior between Upstream Ruby and Fedora >>> Ruby. >>> Case 2-1. does not install ri document by "gem install". >> This is interesting. I remember to notice the shorter output, but I >> didn't pay enough attention to it. Will take a look at it. >> >> >> > > Apparently I have met this issue already: > > https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1470 > > So as long as upstream ignores this issue, there are just two options: > > 1) The documentation wont be installed by default. > 2) The handling of default gems will be broken. > > Neither is ideal, but I prefer the first option a bit. If somebody needs > the documentation, it can be generated explicitly (gem rdoc). > > > Vít > _______________________________________________ > ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Jun Aruga jar...@redhat.com IRC: jaruga, Office: TPB(Technology Park Brno) Building C 1F, Brno, Czech Republic _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
