On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 03:22:55PM -0400, Thompson, David wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Pjotr Prins <pjotr.publi...@thebird.nl> > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:10:15AM -0400, Thompson, David wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Pjotr Prins <pjotr.publi...@thebird.nl> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Would it be OK to add some RUBY paths? > >> > >> What additional Ruby search paths are needed? We already have $GEM_PATH. > > > > $GEM_HOME > > This one doesn't make sense because it specifies where gems are to be > installed. Store items are immutable, so one cannot install gems into > them.
We still provide the gem tool ;). If we set this value to something sensible (relative to $HOME) people can still use gems. The current default setting is not good because it does not provide isolation. I realise this may not be a guix concern, but for guix adoption it is good to think about these things. > > $GEM_SPEC_CACHE > > Is this a real search path or can it only point to a single cache > directory? If the latter, it cannot be a native search path in a > package recipe. Same reasoning. We want isolation between different Ruby installations. That is what I do in that script - pick up the HASH and create a path relative to $HOME. If this is what every normal user needs to do, why can't we have guix help out? Ultimately it is part of the Ruby environment we work in - therefore it is the resposibility of the Ruby package. It does away with needing RVM :) We can ignore this point, but it means every user will have to work around it. What is the point of that? Pj.
