On 10/22/07, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/22/07, Trans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/21/07, Eric Hodel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No. > > > > > > If you install the same gem into the default dir and into a separate > > > path (with install -i), the files (.rb and .so) will be installed > > > twice, but only one version will be activated. > > Why not use 'opt/' ? I was reading about it in the FHS and it seems to > > fit exactly with the gems way of doing things.[1] Gems fits the > > /opt/<provider>/<package> mold. All RubyGems would need do is register > > "gems" as a provider LANANA [2] and move the the cache to > > /vat/opt/gems/; then RubyGems would be in perfect compliance with FHS. > > > > [1] > > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#OPTADDONAPPLICATIONSOFTWAREPACKAGES > > [2] http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/index.html > > Because there are POSIX systems not as stupid as Linux FHS.
He he. I won't argue with you there! But maybe it's a good route for the Debian folk. Just a thought anyway. T. _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
