On 2007-10-21 13:15:31 -0400, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On 10/21/07, Donavan Pantke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Saturday 20 October 2007 01:29:14 pm Chad Woolley wrote:
>
> > I don't do Debian package maintenance, but I do understand the overall
> > problem
> > with using /usr/local/lib. The issue is that a system package manager should
> > not install software into /usr/local, because that's supposed to be used for
> > system local commands. What this means is that a system package manager
> > can't
> > install gems and have them in the same structure.
>
> Yes, but as far as I know, the debian ruby packages don't install
> gems. Some of them repackage the contents of gems to be installed by
> dpkg, but this loses the ability to have multiple versions installed
> concurrently.
yeah. but i do on suse package gems as gems. [1]
> I'm still not sure I understand why the gem command installed by a
> package can't put the gems under /usr/local the only glitch I can
> think of is that it might make it difficult or impossible to update
> gem itself as a gem.
because a distributor is supposed to leave /usr/local alone. dont ever
touch it.
if you get the possibility to install gems in a way that gem sees them
but treats them as read only, you get a good cooperation of both
packaging systems. atm "gem uninstall" would uninstall gems installed
through rpms and leave the rpm DB in an inconsistent state.
for now i had to live with that situation and hope the admin works
responsible. for the future i would like to solve the problem.
my first approach was to fix gem uninstall to query the rpm db if the
gem is installed via rpm and refuse to uninstall it. a vendor gem dir
would be a good option aswell.
darix
[1] http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/ruby/
--
openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux
openSUSE is good for you
www.opensuse.org
_______________________________________________
Rubygems-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
