On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Tim Olsen wrote:
> What I was more thinking of was if there was a change in how rubygems
> organizes things under /usr/local. Lucas proposed storing gems under
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8. But if rubygems needs to move things
> around upon an upgrade, then that's
pgrade that forces an
update of installed gems automatically, which would be the only case
in which this might be in jeopardy.
Adam
--
Opscode, Inc.
Adam Jacob, CTO
T: (206) 508-7449 E: a...@opscode.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
I believe the patch for transitioning to /usr/local can include the
previous GEM_PATH, which should make the transition relatively smooth
for existing users.
Adam
--
Opscode, Inc.
Adam Jacob, CTO
T: (206) 508-7449 E: a...@opscode.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ
On Aug 28, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Daigo Moriwaki wrote:
> I have little idea on CPAN or pypi culture. Are unsigned packages (i.e. no
> infrastructure checking packages consistency) common on CPAN or pypi? Don't
> CPAN
> or pypi users have no security concern?
They do not have any kind of signing, as
installed on the
system. We don't alter CPAN, or tar. Additionally, many rubygems no
longer even ship with setup.rb, and even fewer will as we move to 1.9,
where rubygems is a standard part of ruby.
Please make the defaults be /usr/local. At the very least, make the
Gem binary path be /usr
5 matches
Mail list logo
