On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Tim Olsen <t...@brooklynpenguin.com> wrote: > What I was more thinking of was if there was a change in how rubygems > organizes things under /usr/local. Lucas proposed storing gems under > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8. But if rubygems needs to move things > around upon an upgrade, then that's technically a violation. Even > setting up directories under /usr/local upon rubygems installation might > be considered a violation. One possibility is to store everything *but* > executables outside of /usr/local.
I think that would be acceptable, but I'm not sure it's necessary. The on disk gem format (with gems under a gems dir in an arch specific path) has been pretty consistent. If CPAN did this, I imagine we would still ship the new version, and just warn users about the breakage on upgrade. With 1.9 shipping rubygems in the core ruby distribution, I think we can be safe in saying if the upstream does this, users are on their own: they choose an external package system, so they can suffer the consequences of a fickle upstream. Best, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
