Re: gem install --vendor
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 4:23 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > Exploring possibilities to better organize gems, I have just discovered > a `--vendor` option (after almost 10 years of existence of this flag > 臘♂️): > > ~~~ > > $ gem install gem2rpm --vendor --no-user-install > Fetching gem2rpm-1.0.2.gem > ERROR: While executing gem ... (Errno::EACCES) > Permission denied @ dir_s_mkdir - /usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby/gems > /usr/share/ruby/fileutils.rb:406:in `mkdir' > > > ... snip ... > > ~~~ > > > This option apparently tries to install gems into > `/usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby/gems` and I wonder, isn't this location we > should be using for gems distributed by Fedora? The main advantage is > that we would not be mixing default/bundled gems with ours. The downside > is that it probably does not support binary extensions out of the box. > > Thoughts? > One more note: Packaging guidelines say that the directory is for non-gem packages only. Furthermore, it says gems in `/usr/share/gems` can be shared across all ruby implementations, those `gems` in vendor directories can't. Is this the reason why binary extensions wouldn't be supported? Looking at the other `vendor` paths, it looks ok: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/#_interpreter_independence_and_directory_macros Pavel > > Thx > > > Vít > > ___ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: gem install --vendor
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 4:23 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > Exploring possibilities to better organize gems, I have just discovered > a `--vendor` option (after almost 10 years of existence of this flag > 臘♂️): > > ~~~ > > $ gem install gem2rpm --vendor --no-user-install > Fetching gem2rpm-1.0.2.gem > ERROR: While executing gem ... (Errno::EACCES) > Permission denied @ dir_s_mkdir - /usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby/gems > /usr/share/ruby/fileutils.rb:406:in `mkdir' > > > ... snip ... > > ~~~ > > > This option apparently tries to install gems into > `/usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby/gems` and I wonder, isn't this location we > should be using for gems distributed by Fedora? The main advantage is > that we would not be mixing default/bundled gems with ours. The downside > is that it probably does not support binary extensions out of the box. > > Thoughts? > Oddly enough, this seems to be the initial purpose: ``` * Added vendor gem support to RubyGems. Package managers may now install gems in Gem.vendor_dir with the --vendor option to gem install. Issue #943 by Marcus Rückert. ``` https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/943 It even comes with a message, that you should uninstall that gem with a package manager, not `gem ...`. Good find! Pavel > > Thx > > > Vít > > ___ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
gem install --vendor
Exploring possibilities to better organize gems, I have just discovered a `--vendor` option (after almost 10 years of existence of this flag 臘♂️): ~~~ $ gem install gem2rpm --vendor --no-user-install Fetching gem2rpm-1.0.2.gem ERROR: While executing gem ... (Errno::EACCES) Permission denied @ dir_s_mkdir - /usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby/gems /usr/share/ruby/fileutils.rb:406:in `mkdir' ... snip ... ~~~ This option apparently tries to install gems into `/usr/share/ruby/vendor_ruby/gems` and I wonder, isn't this location we should be using for gems distributed by Fedora? The main advantage is that we would not be mixing default/bundled gems with ours. The downside is that it probably does not support binary extensions out of the box. Thoughts? Thx Vít OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
