On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 08:24:39AM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > On Monday, 25 April 2016 4:37:56 PM AEST Hleb Valoshka wrote: > > If ghi is the only consumer of ruby-ghi then I don't see any reason to > > introduce a new package. So I suggest to merge. > > Thank you, I'll consider merging. > > It is true that for now there are no packages depending on "ruby-ghi". > But eventually there are may be some packages that need it. Since library is > exposed to global name space it is better to install it by proper library > package. We don't do that. > Could you please kindly advise me (or mention example packages) how to > install private Ruby library? At the moment I don't know how to do that. We don't do that, and there is no pre-made solution for it. If you insist you must do that, you can install the code to anywhere you want, and patch the binary to do something like this before anything: $LOAD_PATH.unshift "/path/to/private/lib" but I think it's too much trouble for no gain. who cares if their libraries are in the global namespace, if they are installed with rubygems (as upstream usually assumes it will) their libraries are also available globally. If upstream doesn't think that should be the case, they would have a mechanism to handle that. If the package is mainly an application just call it by its original upstream name and be happy.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature