** Changed in: libgems-ruby (Debian)
Status: Won't Fix => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
Title:
Add rubygems bin to PATH
To manage notifications about this
> Instead of using a debian-specific feature (update-alternatives), I
> think that this should be implemented directly inside rubygems, so it
> becomes possible for upstream to integrate this feature.
For what it's worth, I've talked to the upstream maintainer of Rubygems
(Eric Hodel) about this,
FYI, I started a discussion on the Debian bug tracker:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=403407
I think Neil has an interesting idea about gradually integrating
Rubygems with Debian. Debian Rubygems users would actually appreciate
this. For example, IIRC Rails requires a sqlite3-rub
Joseph Method <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The argument for the second is that gem binaries could then supercede
system binaries. We need to clarify whether this is really beyond the pale,
since the decision to install a gem is an administrator decision, not a
user decision. In other words, inst
On 23/09/08 at 05:02 -, Joseph Method wrote:
> I'd like to file a bug against the communication in this report. Also,
> there is a caesura at the end leading to a breakup that is hard to
> follow.
>
> Actually, here's an explanation to save others time:
> 1. Neil Wilson uploads a package
> 2.
I'd like to file a bug against the communication in this report. Also,
there is a caesura at the end leading to a breakup that is hard to
follow.
Actually, here's an explanation to save others time:
1. Neil Wilson uploads a package
2. Lucas Nussbaum and Scott Kitterman and others disagree with det
Right. We could probably have a long flamefest about exactly who that
statement best applies to, but let's not.
There are two perspectives here and they each have the own validity. They
each look crazy from the other, but that doesn't mean a compromise the
represent constructive progress is no
Changing to invalid. Don't bother wasting your time on this bug unless
you like religious wars with non-constructive individuals.
The workaround is echo 'PATH=/var/lib/gems/1.8/bin:$PATH' >
/etc/profile.d/rubygems1.8.sh
or the equivalent for 1.9.
** Changed in: libgems-ruby (Ubuntu)
Assigne
Reopening the bug since the upload was reverted.
** Changed in: libgems-ruby (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Released => Confirmed
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubu
Glad to see all the feedback on ubuntu-devel was taken into
consideration.
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.
This bug was fixed in the package libgems-ruby - 1.3.0~RC1-0ubuntu1
---
libgems-ruby (1.3.0~RC1-0ubuntu1) intrepid; urgency=low
[ Neil Wilson ]
* Make alternatives respond to verbose option.
* Use a gem specific alternatives database.
* Add rubygems default package that points
New revision with latest upstream fixes and updated copyright detauls in
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-ruby/+archive
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
u
On 14/08/08 at 07:53 -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> 2008/8/14 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Some comments:
> > - debian/operating_system.rb is not properly licensed, and not mentioned in
> > debian/copyright.
>
> Agreed. That needs some tidying up. I can't see any copyright mes
On 14/08/08 at 07:05 -, Mathias Gug wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 05:48:34AM -, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Some comments:
> > - debian/operating_system.rb is not properly licensed, and not mentioned in
> > debian/copyright.
>
> debian/operating_system.rb has the following state
2008/8/14 Mathias Gug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I was using the progressbar example from the rubygems documentation[1]:
>
> The command 'ruby test.rb' fails with a "no such file to load -
> progressbar" error message.
I'm betraying my Rails heritage here and giving you duff instructions.
On Ruby1.8
2008/8/14 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> Some comments:
> - debian/operating_system.rb is not properly licensed, and not mentioned in
> debian/copyright.
Agreed. That needs some tidying up. I can't see any copyright message
in there about the debian packaging either. Does Debian ne
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 05:48:34AM -, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Some comments:
> - debian/operating_system.rb is not properly licensed, and not mentioned in
> debian/copyright.
debian/operating_system.rb has the following statement:
#Licensed unded the GPL. See /usr/share/common-licen
Hi,
Some comments:
- debian/operating_system.rb is not properly licensed, and not mentioned in
debian/copyright.
- I'm still not convinced by your update-alternatives hack. This should
*really* go upstream, so it's fixed for every distro, not just Ubuntu.
- why the switch to simple-patchsys?
- y
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 09:20:54AM -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> > While testing the package I came across the usage of gem libraries:
> > according to the rubygems documentation, you need to do some
> > post-install work in order to setup ruby gems correctly. I was wondering
> > if the ruby librarie
New version with latest upstream fixes in https://edge.launchpad.net
/~ubuntu-ruby/+archive
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
u
2008/8/12 Mathias Gug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> How so ?
In that the alternatives system will support and switch between
another two sets of binary wrappers once we write the packages.
> Are these no longer required ?
08 exists. All the other patches have been superceded. I've put the
details in th
I've reviewed the libgem-ruby package from the ubuntu-ruby ppa
(libgems-ruby_1.2.0+2008072001-0ubuntu1~bbox4). Here are my comments:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:43:26AM -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> New version in https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-ruby/+archive
>
> - It's ready for the other ruby
On 05/08/08 at 07:40 -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> The user gem mechanism is broken by the Debian packaging and that
> stops Rails 2.1 using it as it expects.
Bug # ?
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F
2008/8/4 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No, it's a patch that makes rubygems work better on systems with
> update-alternatives, while you should aim at a global solution instead.
No I aim for the simplest solution that will solve the most pain in
the shortest possible time. Others can then
On 04/08/08 at 21:02 -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> 2008/8/4 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Some notes in random order:
> > The install / install / uninstall problem you mention is a gem problem.
> > I think that it should be solved at the rubygem side, not specifically
> > for Debian. That's
2008/8/4 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Some notes in random order:
> The install / install / uninstall problem you mention is a gem problem.
> I think that it should be solved at the rubygem side, not specifically
> for Debian. That's over-engineered. Have you talked to the gems
> developer
** Changed in: libgems-ruby (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => In Progress
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@list
Some notes in random order:
I agree that installing the binary wrappers, or symlinks, to
/usr/local/bin, so that they are in $PATH, is a good thing.
The install / install / uninstall problem you mention is a gem problem.
I think that it should be solved at the rubygem side, not specifically
for D
New version in https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-ruby/+archive
This version uses alternatives in the background to handle the links in
/usr/local/bin using the separate admin dirs suggested earlier (although
I use /var/lib/gems/alternatives rather than
/usr/local/lib/gems/alternatives to keep thi
** Changed in: libgems-ruby (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Neil Wilson (neil-aldur)
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
2008/8/1 Mathias Gug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to with 'packages' -
> the rubygem package ?
The Debian/Ubuntu dpkg package.
> What does the "gem from source" do ? Install in /usr/bin/ ? In
> /var/lib/gems/ruby1.{8,9}/bin ? How does "gem from source" ha
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 08:23:02AM -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> Linking to /usr/local/bin sounds appealling until you do the following
> rather reasonable sequence of events.
>
> Install 1.8 Gem
> Install 1.9 Gem
> Uninstall 1.8 Gem.
>
> Result is no link in /usr/local/bin and the user installing
Linking to /usr/local/bin sounds appealling until you do the following
rather reasonable sequence of events.
Install 1.8 Gem
Install 1.9 Gem
Uninstall 1.8 Gem.
Result is no link in /usr/local/bin and the user installing gem from
source again 'cos those packages don't work properly'.
The choice t
I had a look at your implementation and it looks interesting. However I
wonder if the usage of the update-alternative system is necessary as it
brings additional complexity (as already pointed by Lucas above).
Another option would be to simply force symlink binaries from
/var/lib/ruby1.*/bin/ to /
OK We now have code for a proposed fix for rubygems.
I've implemented an 'update-alternatives' system that creates a link to
gem binaries in /usr/local/bin. It arbitrates correctly between ruby1.8
and ruby1.9 gem installations.
At the moment the first gem installed wins, ie if you install capistr
On 12/07/2008, mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the continuing intransigence of the debian maintainers, I've been
> wondering if it isn't time for a bunch of Ruby folk who use
> debian/Ubuntu to put together an alternative Ruby release as a single
> .deb that actually works properly.
That
mathew, nobody is stopping you from starting to work in a PPA.
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
h
Given the continuing intransigence of the debian maintainers, I've been
wondering if it isn't time for a bunch of Ruby folk who use
debian/Ubuntu to put together an alternative Ruby release as a single
.deb that actually works properly.
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/
>> I figure there are 3 reasonable options, which could be checked against the
>> packaging policies:
>> * Install executables in /usr/bin
>
> no, risks overwriting files from Debian packages.
For what it's worth, the behaviour of the version of rubygems that comes
with apt-get is so annoying tha
Please do not disable "gem update --system". I use this to bypass the
problem discussed above, and get gems on my server's path.
It's unlikely that people will issue this command "by accident". Most
rails users will install gems using "rake gems:install" now that Rails
2.1.0 is out, and ruby peopl
On 28/05/08 at 19:21 -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> On 28/05/2008, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For each Debian package where a gem also exists, you would have to
> > modify the Debian package to use the alternatives system. That clearly
> > doesn't work.
>
> Why not?
Take a given D
On 28/05/08 at 19:01 -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> On 28/05/2008, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That would require hacking rubygems quite deeply. If rubygems provided
> > some hooks that we could use to implement distro-specific stuff, why
> > not. But it's not the case, AFAIK.
>
> N
On 28/05/2008, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For each Debian package where a gem also exists, you would have to
> modify the Debian package to use the alternatives system. That clearly
> doesn't work.
Why not?
Surely that should be part of the packaging wrapper for a package that
is
On 28/05/2008, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That would require hacking rubygems quite deeply. If rubygems provided
> some hooks that we could use to implement distro-specific stuff, why
> not. But it's not the case, AFAIK.
Not really. It's a relatively straightforward program to fol
On 28/05/08 at 14:59 -, Rocco Stanzione wrote:
> Can we nix the personal attacks please. I don't know what policy, if any, is
> responsible for this, but as far as I can tell no other package installs
> files in /usr/local/bin, and I don't think they should. See the FHS:
> http://www.pathna
On 28/05/08 at 15:33 -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> OK.
>
> So patch to gem1.8 to call update-alternatives with a lowish priority
> whenever it fiddles with '/var/lib/gems/1.8/bin'.
>
> Similarly to gem1.9.
>
> Now what about the corresponding apt-package. Let's say we have
> 'mongrel' installed vi
On 28/05/08 at 14:25 -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> 2008/5/28 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Installing to /usr/local/bin could sound acceptable to me. Not sure if
> > that will be acceptable for the other ruby maintainers in Debian.
>
> Could this be solved with the alternatives system I
OK.
So patch to gem1.8 to call update-alternatives with a lowish priority
whenever it fiddles with '/var/lib/gems/1.8/bin'.
Similarly to gem1.9.
Now what about the corresponding apt-package. Let's say we have
'mongrel' installed via gems with the alternatives system pointing
/usr/bin/mongrel_rai
Now that's not a bad idea. I hadn't thought of using the alternatives
system.
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@li
Can we nix the personal attacks please. I don't know what policy, if any, is
responsible for this, but as far as I can tell no other package installs files
in /usr/local/bin, and I don't think they should. See the FHS:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLOCALLOCALHIERARCHY
I figure
2008/5/28 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No, but I'm getting annoyed by your tone in this whole discussion. I
Well I'm sorry that you feel that way. I'm not here to upset anybody.
I'm here to get a problem that has been annoying me and probably about
9000 others for the last two to three y
2008/5/28 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Installing to /usr/local/bin could sound acceptable to me. Not sure if
> that will be acceptable for the other ruby maintainers in Debian.
Could this be solved with the alternatives system I wonder. The gem
installations are after all alternatives t
On 28/05/08 at 13:38 -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> Now you're getting desperate.
No, but I'm getting annoyed by your tone in this whole discussion. I
already spent a lot of time on this rubygems stuff, despite not being
interested at all in rubygems (I ship my ruby libs as tarballs AND
gems, and I d
On 28/05/08 at 13:38 -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> Now you're getting desperate. All packages depend upon the setting of
> PATH to work at all. You can hardly leave it blank can you.
>
> The alternative is to alter the package to allow gems to write the
> binaries to /usr/bin where they belong.
Ins
Now you're getting desperate. All packages depend upon the setting of
PATH to work at all. You can hardly leave it blank can you.
The alternative is to alter the package to allow gems to write the
binaries to /usr/bin where they belong.
Which policy would you prefer to change?
2008/5/28 Lucas N
On 28/05/08 at 12:42 -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> Have you looked at the filesystem of an Ubuntu Hardy machine recently?
> You might want to take a look.
base-files (4.0.1ubuntu2) hardy; urgency=low
* Implement LSB-3.1, 16.2 (/etc/profile.d). Addresses LP #102105.
According to Debian policy
Have you looked at the filesystem of an Ubuntu Hardy machine recently?
You might want to take a look.
2008/5/28 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> See #18808 about /etc/profile.d/ ...
--
Neil Wilson
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug not
See #18808 about /etc/profile.d/ ...
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/ma
Another "me too" notice - it would be nice if the rubygems package
actually became useful. I think most people installing it are even aware
of possible problems/clashes with the distro's package management
system.
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received thi
Kevin DuBois:
> perhaps it would be better to have the package install symlinks to
> directories already in $PATH or to modify the build the package so
> that it is installed to somewhere in $PATH
The catch is, Debian/Ubuntu doesn’t control the files that can come in
the installed gems, so can’t
perhaps it would be better to have the package install symlinks to
directories already in $PATH or to modify the build the package so that
it is installed to somewhere in $PATH
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a
Note that Ruby 1.9 ships RubyGems bundled, so that’s another argument
for somehow handling this issue; from 1.9 on, `sudo gem install X` that
simply works will be almost crucial.
(Yes, I’m aware of the discussion at the Debian BTS and that this issue
is not simple to fix in an uniform, shell-agnos
** Tags added: path ruby rubygems
** Also affects: ruby1.8 (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: gems (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a memb
I would like to leave a "me too" note here. Ruby is becoming
increasingly important for web applications (Rails, merb, ramaze; you
name it!) and administrative tasks (say: glue language), and lots of
gems add really useful functionality. It is a *real* PITA that
/var/lib/gems/1.8/bin is not in the
** Changed in: libgems-ruby (Debian)
Status: Unknown => Won't Fix
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@li
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #403407
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=403407
** Also affects: libgems-ruby (Debian) via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=403407
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.l
I second the motion. The usefulness of the package is severely limited
by this.
** Changed in: libgems-ruby (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Low
Status: New => Confirmed
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you
67 matches
Mail list logo
