Comparing the behavior of using install to replace /sbin/halt to /bin/ls is apples to oranges. This is about the sane behavior of packages and the way they are configured.
http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html - Debian's stance, and it is valid. Ubuntu's responsibility is to give packages sane defaults that are not going to flood a system with garbage. Both CPAN and PEAR respect the FHS, and install into /usr/local even though their binaries go into /usr. Ruby on the other hand rejects the FHS, and if installs to /usr, will install its modules to /usr, possibly overriding system files and having complete disregard for the package maintainer. A (competent) system administrator installing gems from source would install to /usr/local which avoids the problem since there is no chance of Ruby overriding critical system files. The only sane alternative then to make gems available and not violate the FHS w.r.t. to /usr/local is to install out of the /usr or /usr/local hierarchies which is currently how gems work. While possibly adding gems to the path is a valid option (I'm not going to weigh one way or another), RubyGems's developers have stated they do not wish to fix the (in my opinion, horrid) design issues with the way gems are installed, thus making it dangerous to offer gems configured for any path other then its own where it can't possibly hose someones system because they install a bad gem. -- rubygems bin in PATH potentially breaks other applications and violates all sense of decency in packaging. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/262063 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
