On 10/23/2009 12:24 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 10/23/2009 11:29 AM, David Lutterkort wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 17:13 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> I did a blog post on this subject, showing off a local build of a
>> compat-ruby-1.9.1 package I've made. I'm still working on some of the
>> other troubles all of that introduces, but I wanted to let you know
>> where I'm thinking it could be heading towards.
> Does that mean that you'd also want to change the packaging guidelines
> so that rpm's installs into the vendor directories rather than site ? I
> don't have a strong opinion either way, but think we should calrify
Agreed. I'm trying to follow what Perl does here, for the largest part,
as it made extreme sense to me. I think it's a major improvement overall.
A correction on what I previously said;
/usr/local/ is -at least in the Perl plans- to include the "site"
So, the searchpath would be like (if the Perl plans are followed):
^^ (no site_ruby) because that is redundant)
^^ (no vendor_ruby because that is redundant)
In fact, the plans for Perl include dropping the version number altogether;
Now this looks extremely clean!
compat-packages could just:
How does this look?
Where would gems go? From packages, of course, outside of /usr/local/.
But where would "gem install" gems go? I'd say /usr/local/, but what do