On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 02:34:32PM +0100, Bram Senders wrote: > 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.
Can the libs all go in /usr/lib/shoes? How does Debian package Firefox? I have mixed feelings about referencing Debian's ruby 1.8 package. For one, how am I going to include a sandboxed Ruby with Shoes on distros like Debian? Debian prefers to slice everything up, whereas I can really control the bundle on OS X and Windows. I like that traditional Ruby is separate from Shoes on these platforms, though I'm still trying to decide if it's necessary. I definitely don't want to share gems with plain Ruby, though that is solved by lib/shoes/cache.rb. > 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. A variable could be added to the Makefile that would control this. The Makefile is for the Linux/BSDs only. _why
