Why we need have packages from gems in Debian? Why we not use gems same at cpan?
Regards, Luiz Vitor Martinez Cardoso. On 10/18/07, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 19/10/07 at 00:50 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote: > > > > Hello again, > > > > Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > - rubygems. ruby 1.9.1 will include rubygems in stdlib (it hasn't been > > > imported yet, according to [EMAIL PROTECTED]). This means that we > > > will have to decide whether we continue to package libs from .tgz, > or > > > if we want to package some rubygems too. > > > > What do you mean by 'packaging rubygems' ? Would it be reasonable to > > put the .gem file in a debian package, and have it installed by rubygems > > at configure time ?? I argue against: > > Me too :-) > What I meant is that "gem install foo" would be run during the package > build, so we can still hack the resulting installation, move files > around, etc. The difference with the current situation are: > - we would install the files in /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/, so those would > only be found by scripts that require 'rubygems'. > - our source tarballs would basically only contain the .gem file. > > > * we'll have great pain whenever rubygems has a simple bug, because > > we'll need to deal with that in post-inst and pre-rm; I foresee > > nightmares about this > > * we're wasting disk resources by having both the .gem and the > > unpacked gem > > * we'll have trouble with gems with binary code. > > full ack on those points. That's why I want to "gem install" at build > time. > > > > I had a long discussion with Eric Hodel (brbrain), and I think that we > > > should package gems. But there's a number of issues that should be > dealt > > > with first: > > > - when run 'normally', gem should not install to /usr/lib/ruby/gems, > but > > > to some place under /usr/local, to avoid clashes between debian > > > packages and manually installed gems. > > > - binaries from rubygem packages should be installed to /usr/bin, > while > > > binaries from manually installed gems should go to /usr/local. > > > - rdoc documentation should be installed to /usr/share/doc > > > > I agree with all these considerations. > > > > > - what about ri documentation ? > > > > I don't know how ri lookup works, but it really should return all > > documentation installed on the system. Currently, ri files go to > > /usr/share/ri/$version/ , so we might want to install ri documentation > > into /usr/share/ri/dist/$version ? > > I think that gems already take care of making ri docs from gems > available through the ri command. I'm not sure how. So packaging gems > would partially solve this problem. > -- > | Lucas Nussbaum > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | > | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Atenciosamente, Luiz Vitor.
