On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 17:17 -0600, why the lucky stiff wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:50:16PM +0100, Bram Senders wrote:
> > I was thinking of packaging Shoes for Debian, mainly because I think it
> > would be useful to have such a package, so that people on Debian systems
> > and derivatives have an easy way to install Shoes and create apps (and
> > because somebody had already nudged me to create such a package), and
> > possibly because it will expose it to more people.
> 
> Way to be helpful, this would be very generous of you.  Even if we
> end up devising all-in-one executables, having the Shoes distro installed
> through apt will be a speed pass.  I just haven't gotten around to
> making any yet.

Eej _why,

I'm having a bit of trouble packaging Shoes which I don't seem to be
able to fix on my own, in part because I do not know what the best way
to fix it.

It seems that Shoes is designed to be run from a directory with all
files in the same place, i.e. in the way that the dist/ dir is created
and filled with stuff.  However, it is not possible to do it this way on
a Debian system, because it must adhere to the filesystem hierarchy
standard (FHS); according to the FHS, the binary and wrapper (shoes and
shoes-bin) should go in /usr/bin; libshoes.so should go in /usr/lib, and
the ruby library files (lib/shoes.rb and lib/shoes/*.rb) should go
in /usr/lib/ruby/1.8.

Now, I can put all of those files there in the package, but then the
binary or wrapper script can't find the Ruby library files, because you
explicitly set the Ruby load path based on argv[0], which only works of
course when the script and the libs are in the same dir.  I could patch
this out, but I really don't know whether this would be the right way to
go (because I don't know the motivation for altering the Ruby load path
in the first place), and when I patch this, then Shoes' Debian source
would differ from the upstream source, and that is not so nice.

Could you shed some light on this, _why?  What do you think would be the
best way to go?

Cheers,
Bram

Reply via email to