On Thursday 28 August 2008 16:43, Mathias Gug wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:14:06AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Besides the minor packaging strangeness in Neil's version (change of > > packaging system, use of a git snapshot without saying it, copyright > > problems, etc), > > Agreed. There are some packaging mistakes. > > > the root problem is the hack around update-alternatives > > to remove the possibility for rubygems to overwrite binaries when > > several versions of the same gem are installed (possibly for different > > versions of ruby). > > > > * I don't think that this problem is grave enough to warrant maintaining > > a long term divergence with upstream in Debian/Ubuntu. > > > > * When discussed with upstream, they suggested a different solution > > (warn the user when rubygems is going to overwrite a binary). > > The upload tries to address one specific issue raised in bug 145267 [1]: > > Providing binaries shipped by gems on the default path. > > In hardy, the end user using a gem (let's say the rails gem) would > have to do the following things: > > 1. sudo apt-get install rubygems > 2. sudo gem install rails > 3. Modify the default PATH in the environment to include > /var/lib/gems/1.X/bin/ so that the rails command can be invoked from the > command line. > > The upload aims at removing step number 3 from the process by symlinking > the gem binary from /var/lib/gems/1.X/bin/ into /usr/local/bin/. This is > accomplished by hooking calls to update-alternatives in the post-install > phase of a gem. These hooks were added by the upstream developers in > order to be able to do exactly that kind of things. Thus the reason to > use an upstream snapshot.
However labling it an RC version when it's a snapshot is fundamentally deceptive, wrong, and not at all Ubuntu. > And that's all what the upload is trying to solve. Other concerns raised > in this thread and other threads are valid - there were valid before the > upload and are still valid after the upload. It's one step toward > improving the end-user experience of rubygems in the next version of > Ubuntu. > > [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libgems-ruby/+bug/145267 Apparently all the concerns about this raised by numerous Ubuntu developers are irrelevent then? https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/262063 It may 'solve' that problem but it raises much more sever possiblities. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
