On 10/20/07, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/20/07, Chad Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/20/07, Rick DeNatale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Somehow they think that that violates the FHS, or at least the debian > > > policy interpretation of it. > > > Look at the very end of: > > > http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html > > > I can't say that I understand it, but that's what the Debian ruby > > > maintainers think. > > Actually, I thought that Trans was pointing to GoboLinux, which has > made this decision. They may reuse the .deb format which may be the > source of the confusion. I'm not sure, as I haven't actually looked at > what Debian or Ubuntu do (I always build from source on these > platforms).
I'm not sure what he was quoting, but the debian discussion emerged after he posted some debian code, at least it was commented that way. > > That document really needs to quote the exact sections of FHS that are > > violated, and why they consider them to be violated by Rubygems. It's > > too vague to just say that RubyGems violates FHS because it "follows > > the "one directory per package and version" rule." > > The Debian view, as far as I can tell, is centred around the idea that > you *shouldn't* have more than one version of a library installed at > any one time. I'm not sure. There is a legitimate problem with > RubyGems and normal Unix layout, if Ruby is installed in /usr/bin and > /usr/lib instead of /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/lib, because there > are native libraries that can be built into the target directory. I think that that was their original objection to gems vs. debian packages including ruby code. But looking into it further, I believe that they also decided to package the rubygems code for those who wanted to install it via apt-get or the like, and perverted it to put the gems under /var/lib > /usr/bin is supposed to be able to be NFS mountable; /usr/local/bin is > supposed to be specific to a particular machine. Actually, reading the FHS, all of /usr is shareable and read-only, and "The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system administrator when installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being overwritten when the system software is updated. It may be used for programs and data that are shareable amongst a group of hosts, but not found in /usr." So it's not really for a particular machine, but for local installation of stuff that OS maintenance (e.g. apt-get etc) should leave alone. I think, maybe wrong. -- Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
