Re: Common Position on RubyGems, stupid? what about /usr/local/ ?
Isn't that list for subversion commit messages ? I also saw that debian-ruby
was very quiet that's why i posted to devel.
I didn't say this is the official policy, nor that the page was stupid (the
page is actually well done). I'm just asking a question, isn't it stupid not
to support gem officially. I'm not yet sure of the answer.
My intention wasn't to offend anyone. I'm sorry if it's what it did. Probably
the word stupid shouldn't have been there.
A few points:
I think ruby will be an important part of debian, mostly because of its
killer app ruby on rails.
I also think that using unique namespace is a growing trend in computing. By
unique namespace i mean path that includes versions and that allow multiple
version to coexists. for example for global frameworks
for individual components the MS dotnet gac implemented by mono
ruby gems of course
python eggs more recently
I think it's FHS compliant, under /usr/lib/mono /usr/lib/ruby or
/usr/lib/python2.3/ there are no restrictions.
I don't know if it's good or bad, but i think upstream frameworks will
probably use more often that kind naming scheme.
Debian should probably make it easy to mix components from debian (/usr), and
locally installed package (/usr/local/ and $HOME) such as perl cpan, ruby gems
and python easy_install eggs. While keeping both sides clean (i.e. avoid the
installation of any non-deb in /usr).
The support is already good (see /usr/local/share/*), but i think this should
be extended to those news naming deployments schemes.
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 19/04/06 at 12:33 +0200, Antony Lesuisse wrote:
Reading http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html was
The correct place to express your disappointment about this "stupid"
page is the email@example.com mailing
list, since this is a web page written by the Debian/Ruby Extras team.