----- Original Message ----- > On 01/30/2012 07:56 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> On 01/27/2012 12:21 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Yes, we are of course trying to push the patches upstream, but it > >>> is a bit problematic, since the upstream says, that this is an > >>> FHS-specific issue and they only want to do general solutions - > >>> see [1] for the discussion. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda. > >>> > >>> [1] https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/210 > >> > >> That's not quite what upstream says and I think we can move this > >> forward > >> if you rope in the ruby maintainers from other major distributions > >> and > >> get broader support. Meanwhile, using this patch downstream seems > >> unwarranted since there is no urgent need to fix this. > >> > >> Rahul > > > > Citing Zenspider [1]: > > > > "Other platforms don't care about FHS and it shouldn't be the > > default." So it is what the upstream says and I don't think that > > packagers from other distributions would help us. > This consideration is mostly irrelevant. > > We are building the distro, therefore it's our (the packagers') task > and > duty to make sure a package technically properly integrates into our > distro. It's upstream's freedom to help us to make integrating their > works into ours easy or to ignore us. > > The technical background behind all this is Fedora being a > multiarch'ed > distro, into which installing arch-depending binaries into a > directory, > which is not supposed to contain arch-dependent files, doesn't fit > _technically_ (Note: This is a technical requirement and not a matter > of > conventions). > > => If upstream can't or doesn't want to provide a solution to this > technical problem, Fedora packagers will have to come up with a > solution > and carry around patches. This not unusual, because some upstreams' > devs > have never used multiarch'ed systems and are not aware about the > shot-comings of their implementation. >
Yes, this is exactly what we are doing - we are carrying the patches that we made so that we can make things better from Fedora point of view. So what is the problem here? :) > > For example, people from Debian/Ubuntu install Gems under > > /var/lib/gems [2], which doesn't really make sense to us. > Could you elaborate why you are saying so? I am not sufficiently > familiar with ruby, but it could be a "quick hack" which at least > could > help to some extend. > We tend to see rubygems as libraries, that can be shared among systems, not variable data (as considered by Debian/Ubuntu packagers [1]). Therefore we place them into /usr rather than into /var according to FHS. > Ralf > -- -- Regards, Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda. [1] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=566 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
