Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Ruby 1.9.1 is supposed to be released in december 2007, and will be
> ruby's stable release.
>
> There's a lot of things that should be discussed before that, and we
> don't have much time:
The ruby packaging policy has been discussed off and on but never
concludes into a
* Grabber [Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:38:25 -0300]:
> Why we need have packages from gems in Debian? Why we not use gems same at
> cpan?
I'm not sure you mean this, but many software available from CPAN is
packaged for Debian in the official repositories as well.
--
Adeodato Simó
Hi,
On 18/10/07 at 23:38 -0300, Grabber wrote:
> Why we need have packages from gems in Debian? Why we not use gems same at
> cpan?
I'm not sure of what you mean with "why we not use gems same at cpan".
We in any case, Debian's SC states that "our priorities are our users
and free software". ;)
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:
> > > - rubyge
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 pack
On 19/10/07 at 00:40 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> - we must patch Ruby to add the above directory in its search path
> (which should be first /usr/local, then /usr/lib/ruby/dist, and finally
> ruby's stdlib)
I think that this can be done at configure time.
Also, we should _really_ find a com
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
On 19/10/07 at 00:12 +0200, Mathieu Blondel wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> I think that packages installed by hand go to
>> /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8, at least when installed with setup.rb. It
>> would be really wrong if packages installed by hand would go somewhere
>> under /usr/lib/.
>>
Hello !
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>> - library installation paths (see #446220):
>>> a common complain heard about Debian's ruby is that we install all
>>> libs in /usr/lib/ruby/1.8, mixing stdlib and third party libs. It
>>> would be a good idea to move away from th
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I think that packages installed by hand go to
/usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8, at least when installed with setup.rb. It
would be really wrong if packages installed by hand would go somewhere
under /usr/lib/.
In my mind, site_ruby is for libs and programs installed by hand.
On 18/10/07 at 21:11 +0200, Mathieu Blondel wrote:
> Hi
>
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> - library installation paths (see #446220):
>> a common complain heard about Debian's ruby is that we install all
>> libs in /usr/lib/ruby/1.8, mixing stdlib and third party libs. It
>> would be a good idea t
Hi
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
- library installation paths (see #446220):
a common complain heard about Debian's ruby is that we install all
libs in /usr/lib/ruby/1.8, mixing stdlib and third party libs. It
would be a good idea to move away from that in ruby1.9.
It's not so much related to the
12 matches
Mail list logo
