Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
Joseph Method <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The argument for the second is that gem binaries could then supercede system binaries. We need to clarify whether this is really beyond the pale, since the decision to install a gem is an administrator decision, not a user decision. In other words, installing a gem is equivalent to installing a source package except that gems allow for quick uninstall. Almost. It's the Gem and whatever else the Gem needs. Personally, I see no problem with installing a Gem that an adminstrator explicitly asks to have installed in the system path. My primary concern is with the dependencies Gems pull in with them. If this is largely beyond the scope of Debian policy, then such 'packages' have an obligation to not cause problems for packages using the system packages. -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 23/09/08 at 05:02 -, Joseph Method wrote: > I'd like to file a bug against the communication in this report. Also, > there is a caesura at the end leading to a breakup that is hard to > follow. > > Actually, here's an explanation to save others time: > 1. Neil Wilson uploads a package > 2. Lucas Nussbaum and Scott Kitterman and others disagree with details about > the packaging No, I also disagree with the solution that was chosen to fix the bug (the use of alternatives). > 0. Clarify that "don't use gems" isn't a solution. Gems are used for different reasons than Deb packages. No, what should be clarified is how much support we want to provide to users of rubygems on Ubuntu. > 3. Commit that *if* Debian rejects movement toward a solution, Ubuntu _can_ maintain its own solution. AFAIK, the Debian rubygems maintainers has never been consulted on this topic. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
Right. We could probably have a long flamefest about exactly who that statement best applies to, but let's not. There are two perspectives here and they each have the own validity. They each look crazy from the other, but that doesn't mean a compromise the represent constructive progress is not possible. I don't think it's been tried (to develop a compromise) yet. -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 14/08/08 at 07:53 -, Neil Wilson wrote: > 2008/8/14 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi, > > > > Some comments: > > - debian/operating_system.rb is not properly licensed, and not mentioned in > > debian/copyright. > > Agreed. That needs some tidying up. I can't see any copyright message > in there about the debian packaging either. Does Debian need that as > well? Yes, please file a bug. > > - why the switch to simple-patchsys? > > That's easy - it's simpler :-). cdbs-edit-patch is the bees knees. No > longer do I hate patching. You are introducing an unnecessary divergence between Debian and Ubuntu, which will make it harder to merge the changes later. > > - you base your version on a git snapshot, with a >5kloc diff compared > to the current version in debian unstable. Is that really reasonable, > since we are far in the Ubuntu release cycle AFAIK? > > I have it on good authority that the version in Debian may very well > be out of date by the end of the month. ;-) And? I think Ubuntu (like Debian) cares about stability, not only about having the very latest software available. > > - have you talked to Daigo Moriwaki about those deep changes to his > Debian package? If not, when do you plan to? > > At the moment Debian bug #403407 is still marked "won't fix" so there > is clearly going to be a divergence whatever happens. You really need > to alter the bug status if Debian is serious about fixing the path > problem. > > I'd be more than happy to sync up with the excellent work Daigo has > done on his package, but they're never going to be the same until > Debian accepts that the problem is fixable. > > Can you do something about that? *You* can do something about it: communicate with the Debian developer, so he knows that you are working on a solution. AFAIK, it's not the case currently. > > - You never answered by question about a bug# in > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libgems- > ruby/+bug/145267/comments/42 . > > Could you help and file one? Otherwise Debian will have to wait. I'm > kinda busy with a FeatureFreeze deadline and my real job. That's a different bug. Even in Ubuntu, it should be a different bug. > > If I understand it correctly, you want to give Ubuntu a competitive > > advantage by not working with upstream to address this problem globally. > > That doesn't sound right. > > Yes I suppose you probably see it that way. I can't help you with that > and I don't understand why you would want to adopt such a viewpoint. > > I'll let the rubygems commit logs, bug tracker and mailing list speak > for whether I work with upstream or not. You talked to upstream to get the hooks, but then you implemented an Ubuntu-specific solution, that will never be able to be merged upstream, for an upstream problem. That says it all. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 14/08/08 at 07:05 -, Mathias Gug wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 05:48:34AM -, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Some comments: > > - debian/operating_system.rb is not properly licensed, and not mentioned in > > debian/copyright. > > debian/operating_system.rb has the following statement: > > #Licensed unded the GPL. See /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL > > Isn't that enough ? Adding a mention to the debian/copyright file would > be advisable though. Of course not. Which version of the GPL? > > - I'm still not convinced by your update-alternatives hack. This > should *really* go upstream, so it's fixed for every distro, not just > Ubuntu. > > Agreed. The gem system has currently shortcomings. The > update-alternatives proposal is one way to address the issue. Upstream > seems cooperative on that point as it provided the necessary hooks to > implement such a system. So upstream is aware of the problem. They may > work on solving it and it can take some time. > > On the other hand this proposal is one step toward fixing the issue, and > it works now. Once upstream comes up with a good solution, we can > revisit the usage of update-alternatives to manage gems binaries in > /usr/local/bin. Instead of using a debian-specific feature (update-alternatives), I think that this should be implemented directly inside rubygems, so it becomes possible for upstream to integrate this feature. Solving it in a debian-specific clearly sends the wrong message to upstream, especially after upstream has been helpful by adding hooks. > > - you base your version on a git snapshot, with a >5kloc diff compared to > > the current version in debian unstable. Is that really reasonable, since we > > are far in the Ubuntu release cycle AFAIK? > > IMO this is perfectly acceptable as we're not past FeatureFreeze. That > means new upstream version can still be uploaded to the archive. Note that it's not a new upstream version. It's a git snapshot. > > - have you talked to Daigo Moriwaki about those deep changes to his > Debian package? If not, when do you plan to? > > Talking to Daigo Moriwaki would be helpful. However considering the > current freeze for Lenny I doubt that this patch will be accepted in > Debian before Ubuntu enters FeatureFreeze. The point is not to get it into Debian *now*, but to make sure that Daigo agrees with the solution, so Ubuntu doesn't maintain divergence on this. > > If I understand it correctly, you want to give Ubuntu a competitive > > advantage by not working with upstream to address this problem globally. > > That doesn't sound right. > > > > We're trying to improve the usage of gems so that the end user has a > good experience using it on Ubuntu. This work involves upstream (they > provided the necessary hooks) and also some integration work by the > Ubuntu team so that cooperation with dpkg works well. IMO upstream won't > be able to resolve all of the issue as there will always be some distro > specific details (location of paths, support for multiple versions). The path issue is completely orthogonal to the issue of binaries being overwritten. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
2008/8/14 Mathias Gug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I was using the progressbar example from the rubygems documentation[1]: > > The command 'ruby test.rb' fails with a "no such file to load - > progressbar" error message. I'm betraying my Rails heritage here and giving you duff instructions. On Ruby1.8 with a pure ruby application you always have to start a program with require 'rubygems' to get the 'require' monkey patching in place so you can use gem libraries. In ruby1.9 that is done automatically. (f you work in the Rails framework then Rails does that for you). So you don't need the symlinks and rubygem1.8 users wouldn't expect them to be there. > Other comments on the diff between 1.2.0-2 and > 1.2.0+2008081301-0ubuntu1~bbox1: > > * debian/control: > > You've modified the build-dependencies - you're depending on rdoc > rather than an explicit version of it. I think keeping the > dependencies as close as possible to the ones in debian would help. Isn't it a packaging bug? There is no need for a specific version so it should depend upon the default package. I understood that to be Ruby policy. > ruby-pkg-tools has been dropped - why ? Not used. > rubygems depends on rubygems1.8 *and* ruby. The dependency on ruby > seems redundant. It does until you have a clean machine and do 'apt-get install rubygems' at which point you would have access to 'gem', but not 'ruby'. '/usr/bin/ruby' is controlled by the ruby package. If I've installed rubygems without a suffix I sort of expect to be able to use ruby without a suffix. Similarly if I've install rubygems1.8 I'd sort of expect ruby to be called ruby1.8 - hence why the dependency is here and not in the rubygems1.8 package. -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
2008/8/14 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > Some comments: > - debian/operating_system.rb is not properly licensed, and not mentioned in > debian/copyright. Agreed. That needs some tidying up. I can't see any copyright message in there about the debian packaging either. Does Debian need that as well? > - I'm still not convinced by your update-alternatives hack. This should *really* go upstream, so it's fixed for every distro, not just Ubuntu. It will do Lucas, but that won't happen in the week I have before feature freeze. Please consider this a pragmatic prototype. > - why the switch to simple-patchsys? That's easy - it's simpler :-). cdbs-edit-patch is the bees knees. No longer do I hate patching. > - you base your version on a git snapshot, with a >5kloc diff compared to the current version in debian unstable. Is that really reasonable, since we are far in the Ubuntu release cycle AFAIK? I have it on good authority that the version in Debian may very well be out of date by the end of the month. ;-) > - have you talked to Daigo Moriwaki about those deep changes to his Debian package? If not, when do you plan to? At the moment Debian bug #403407 is still marked "won't fix" so there is clearly going to be a divergence whatever happens. You really need to alter the bug status if Debian is serious about fixing the path problem. I'd be more than happy to sync up with the excellent work Daigo has done on his package, but they're never going to be the same until Debian accepts that the problem is fixable. Can you do something about that? > - You never answered by question about a bug# in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libgems- ruby/+bug/145267/comments/42 . Could you help and file one? Otherwise Debian will have to wait. I'm kinda busy with a FeatureFreeze deadline and my real job. > If I understand it correctly, you want to give Ubuntu a competitive > advantage by not working with upstream to address this problem globally. > That doesn't sound right. Yes I suppose you probably see it that way. I can't help you with that and I don't understand why you would want to adopt such a viewpoint. I'll let the rubygems commit logs, bug tracker and mailing list speak for whether I work with upstream or not. -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
Hi, On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 05:48:34AM -, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Some comments: > - debian/operating_system.rb is not properly licensed, and not mentioned in > debian/copyright. debian/operating_system.rb has the following statement: #Licensed unded the GPL. See /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL Isn't that enough ? Adding a mention to the debian/copyright file would be advisable though. > - I'm still not convinced by your update-alternatives hack. This should *really* go upstream, so it's fixed for every distro, not just Ubuntu. Agreed. The gem system has currently shortcomings. The update-alternatives proposal is one way to address the issue. Upstream seems cooperative on that point as it provided the necessary hooks to implement such a system. So upstream is aware of the problem. They may work on solving it and it can take some time. On the other hand this proposal is one step toward fixing the issue, and it works now. Once upstream comes up with a good solution, we can revisit the usage of update-alternatives to manage gems binaries in /usr/local/bin. > - you base your version on a git snapshot, with a >5kloc diff compared to the > current version in debian unstable. Is that really reasonable, since we are > far in the Ubuntu release cycle AFAIK? IMO this is perfectly acceptable as we're not past FeatureFreeze. That means new upstream version can still be uploaded to the archive. Moreover this is code that is coming from upstream, so it will be available in the next upstream release. > - have you talked to Daigo Moriwaki about those deep changes to his Debian package? If not, when do you plan to? Talking to Daigo Moriwaki would be helpful. However considering the current freeze for Lenny I doubt that this patch will be accepted in Debian before Ubuntu enters FeatureFreeze. > - What's the Ubuntu policy about hosting VCS branches for packages? Shouldn't you use bzr on launchpad instead? There isn't a real policy. People have the choice of VCS and where to host their code repository. It's true that most of the Ubuntu Developers will use bzr, but some packages are maintained in git for example (postfix for example). > > Most importantly, your motivations sound unclear to me: > > > No, it's a patch that makes rubygems work better on systems with > > > update-alternatives, while you should aim at a global solution instead. > > > > No I aim for the simplest solution that will solve the most pain in > > the shortest possible time. Others can then generalise that if they > > want. My time is paid for don't forget. > > > > From an Ubuntu point of view a superior package is good, because it > > gives people a reason why they should use Ubuntu and switch to the > > package rather than continue to mess around with the source package as > > they do now. > > > > Certainly I'm not going to get my 200 odd customers to move away from > > source installation without a nice fat carrot to offer them. > > If I understand it correctly, you want to give Ubuntu a competitive > advantage by not working with upstream to address this problem globally. > That doesn't sound right. > We're trying to improve the usage of gems so that the end user has a good experience using it on Ubuntu. This work involves upstream (they provided the necessary hooks) and also some integration work by the Ubuntu team so that cooperation with dpkg works well. IMO upstream won't be able to resolve all of the issue as there will always be some distro specific details (location of paths, support for multiple versions). -- Mathias Gug Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 09:20:54AM -, Neil Wilson wrote: > > While testing the package I came across the usage of gem libraries: > > according to the rubygems documentation, you need to do some > > post-install work in order to setup ruby gems correctly. I was wondering > > if the ruby libraries could be symlinked to > > /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/RUBY_VERSION/ when a gem is installed ? That > > way you wouldn't have to modify your environment or call ruby with the > > -rubygems option. Since site_ruby is already versioned > > update-alternatives is not needed in that case. > > The rubygems documentation is somewhat out of date. The way you use > libraries in a rubygem is simply to do > > require 'library' > > or if you want a particular version > > gem 'gemname', >=2.1.0 > require 'library' > > Rubygems monkey-patches the ruby require system so that you get the > correct gem library automagically. It even works most of the time. > > Have you an example that doesn't work like that? I was using the progressbar example from the rubygems documentation[1]: The command 'ruby test.rb' fails with a "no such file to load - progressbar" error message. The command 'ruby -rubygems test.rb' works as expected. If I symlink /var/lib/gems/1.8/gems/progressbar-0.0.3/lib/progress.rb in /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/, the command 'ruby test.rb' works as expected. [1]: http://rubygems.org/read/chapter/4#page16 > > > I've also come across the following situation: > > > > $ sudo gem1.8 install rails > > $ sudo gem1.9 install rails > > $ sudo gem1.8 install rails > > > > However /usr/local/bin/rake is still using ruby1.9. So gems dependencies > > are not switched to the ruby version used by the installed gem. Is this > > a valid use case ? How should it be handled ? Could the slave option of > > update-alternatives be used to handle binaries from dependencies ? > > That's either a bug or a feature depending upon your viewpoint and is > merely a function of the way gem does reinstalls and handles > versioning (ie it reinstalls the requested gem, but not its > dependencies). If you do that with a source installed gem system, you > would get precisely the same result. > > For me its an edge case with no easy win (the list of binaries of all > the dependencies is not readily available in the program). > > Gem's dependency mechanism is primitive and it does get itself in a > mess if you do anything wildly unorthodox - like uninstall or > reinstall things :-). For this cycle I'd be happy if gem puts its > binaries on the system path and doesn't leave junk lying around or > break things when uninstalling stuff. > > Do you consider this a show stopper? > So it seems that upstream gem would behave the same way as your proposal. I don't think it's a show stopper then. Other comments on the diff between 1.2.0-2 and 1.2.0+2008081301-0ubuntu1~bbox1: * debian/control: You've modified the build-dependencies - you're depending on rdoc rather than an explicit version of it. I think keeping the dependencies as close as possible to the ones in debian would help. ruby-pkg-tools has been dropped - why ? rubygems depends on rubygems1.8 *and* ruby. The dependency on ruby seems redundant. -- Mathias Gug Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
2008/8/12 Mathias Gug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > How so ? In that the alternatives system will support and switch between another two sets of binary wrappers once we write the packages. > Are these no longer required ? 08 exists. All the other patches have been superceded. I've put the details in the changelog. > > === > You should merge the latest version of debian (-2) as your package is > currently uninstallable on intrepid. Done. > While testing the package I came across the usage of gem libraries: > according to the rubygems documentation, you need to do some > post-install work in order to setup ruby gems correctly. I was wondering > if the ruby libraries could be symlinked to > /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/RUBY_VERSION/ when a gem is installed ? That > way you wouldn't have to modify your environment or call ruby with the > -rubygems option. Since site_ruby is already versioned > update-alternatives is not needed in that case. The rubygems documentation is somewhat out of date. The way you use libraries in a rubygem is simply to do require 'library' or if you want a particular version gem 'gemname', >=2.1.0 require 'library' Rubygems monkey-patches the ruby require system so that you get the correct gem library automagically. It even works most of the time. Have you an example that doesn't work like that? > I've also come across the following situation: > > $ sudo gem1.8 install rails > $ sudo gem1.9 install rails > $ sudo gem1.8 install rails > > However /usr/local/bin/rake is still using ruby1.9. So gems dependencies > are not switched to the ruby version used by the installed gem. Is this > a valid use case ? How should it be handled ? Could the slave option of > update-alternatives be used to handle binaries from dependencies ? That's either a bug or a feature depending upon your viewpoint and is merely a function of the way gem does reinstalls and handles versioning (ie it reinstalls the requested gem, but not its dependencies). If you do that with a source installed gem system, you would get precisely the same result. For me its an edge case with no easy win (the list of binaries of all the dependencies is not readily available in the program). Gem's dependency mechanism is primitive and it does get itself in a mess if you do anything wildly unorthodox - like uninstall or reinstall things :-). For this cycle I'd be happy if gem puts its binaries on the system path and doesn't leave junk lying around or break things when uninstalling stuff. Do you consider this a show stopper? I'll get a new version of the package into the PPA just as soon as Intrepid lets me build one! -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
I've reviewed the libgem-ruby package from the ubuntu-ruby ppa (libgems-ruby_1.2.0+2008072001-0ubuntu1~bbox4). Here are my comments: On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 11:43:26AM -, Neil Wilson wrote: > New version in https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-ruby/+archive > > - It's ready for the other ruby interpreters that are around the corner - > Jruby and Rubinus. How so ? > I think this is now the release candidate. Feedback please. > === You've switched to cdbs simplepatch system and it seems you've removed a couple of patches in the process: 01_default_gem_path.dpatch 03_disable_update_system.dpatch 08_tighter_search_regex.dpatch 21_avoid_ioseek.dpatch Are these no longer required ? === You should merge the latest version of debian (-2) as your package is currently uninstallable on intrepid. === While testing the package I came across the usage of gem libraries: according to the rubygems documentation, you need to do some post-install work in order to setup ruby gems correctly. I was wondering if the ruby libraries could be symlinked to /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/RUBY_VERSION/ when a gem is installed ? That way you wouldn't have to modify your environment or call ruby with the -rubygems option. Since site_ruby is already versioned update-alternatives is not needed in that case. === I've also come across the following situation: $ sudo gem1.8 install rails $ sudo gem1.9 install rails $ sudo gem1.8 install rails However /usr/local/bin/rake is still using ruby1.9. So gems dependencies are not switched to the ruby version used by the installed gem. Is this a valid use case ? How should it be handled ? Could the slave option of update-alternatives be used to handle binaries from dependencies ? -- Mathias Gug Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 05/08/08 at 07:40 -, Neil Wilson wrote: > The user gem mechanism is broken by the Debian packaging and that > stops Rails 2.1 using it as it expects. Bug # ? -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
2008/8/4 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > No, it's a patch that makes rubygems work better on systems with > update-alternatives, while you should aim at a global solution instead. No I aim for the simplest solution that will solve the most pain in the shortest possible time. Others can then generalise that if they want. My time is paid for don't forget. >From an Ubuntu point of view a superior package is good, because it gives people a reason why they should use Ubuntu and switch to the package rather than continue to mess around with the source package as they do now. Certainly I'm not going to get my 200 odd customers to move away from source installation without a nice fat carrot to offer them. > I won't be the one making the final decision on this, but for this patch > to be added to the package, I would either want: > (a) that the patch is very, very small > (b) or that the patch is going to be integrated upstream in the near future Technically this isn't a patch. It is using the upstream designed interface to allow an operating system to add aspects to operations. That makes it much more stable over time. I'm asking upstream for their view on the binary clash problem. It's only going to get worse as more interpreters come on line. But it ain't going to happen quickly (certainly not by Augst 28) and in the meantime you have unhappy users of Debian/Ubuntu who would be made happy by what we have here - today. > What do you mean with "default rubygems package"? One like the package 'ruby' that installs the current 'system default' version. All I have is a rubygems package that depends upon rubygems1.8 and ruby so that I get the commands 'gem' and 'ruby' with the default 1.8 versions of each. The user gem mechanism is broken by the Debian packaging and that stops Rails 2.1 using it as it expects. -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 04/08/08 at 21:02 -, Neil Wilson wrote: > 2008/8/4 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Some notes in random order: > > The install / install / uninstall problem you mention is a gem problem. > > I think that it should be solved at the rubygem side, not specifically > > for Debian. That's over-engineered. Have you talked to the gems > > developers about that? Maybe you could implement a solution directly in > > rubygems. > > To do that would essentially require duplicating much of the > alternatives system within rubygems. Feel free to code that up if you > have a few weeks or months available. > > So I can have a 91 line fix in the packaging and hit Intrepid or > several hundred within rubygems which nobody seems that keen on > writing and get nowhere. > > The gem installation problem is fixed within Debian Policy, the system > is kept clean of dangling links and broken Gems and from the user's > perspective they just see a system that works. > > When rubygems finally get around to implementing something that stops > gem1.8 and gem1.9 running into each other then we can delete the two > small procedures that implement the system. > > It's just a patch, Lucas, to make Gems work better in a packaging > environment. It will allow people to switch ruby interpreters with > greater ease. With good packaging people can do that, and that will > give them a reason to use the packages. No, it's a patch that makes rubygems work better on systems with update-alternatives, while you should aim at a global solution instead. I won't be the one making the final decision on this, but for this patch to be added to the package, I would either want: (a) that the patch is very, very small (b) or that the patch is going to be integrated upstream in the near future > > Please check what has been done in Debian recently with the rubygems and > > ruby1.9 packages. How rubygems is managed changed a bit. See source > > packages: libgems-ruby >= 1.2.0-1 and ruby1.9 >= 1.9.0.1-5. (ie, the > > versions in intrepid, not hardy). > > If you looked at the package you'd notice that the code is based upon > the latest Debian package in Intrepid (which is missing a default > rubygems package BTW). What do you mean with "default rubygems package"? > Using the new 'operating_system.rb' override > facility simplifies the package immensely by getting all the policy > defaults in one place as well as allowing the user home area gems > facility to work that is currently crippled by the Debian packaging. If you could avoid words like "crippled" in this discussion, it would help *a lot* and wouldn't make me consider unsubscribing from this bug. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
2008/8/4 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Some notes in random order: > The install / install / uninstall problem you mention is a gem problem. > I think that it should be solved at the rubygem side, not specifically > for Debian. That's over-engineered. Have you talked to the gems > developers about that? Maybe you could implement a solution directly in > rubygems. To do that would essentially require duplicating much of the alternatives system within rubygems. Feel free to code that up if you have a few weeks or months available. So I can have a 91 line fix in the packaging and hit Intrepid or several hundred within rubygems which nobody seems that keen on writing and get nowhere. The gem installation problem is fixed within Debian Policy, the system is kept clean of dangling links and broken Gems and from the user's perspective they just see a system that works. When rubygems finally get around to implementing something that stops gem1.8 and gem1.9 running into each other then we can delete the two small procedures that implement the system. It's just a patch, Lucas, to make Gems work better in a packaging environment. It will allow people to switch ruby interpreters with greater ease. With good packaging people can do that, and that will give them a reason to use the packages. > Please check what has been done in Debian recently with the rubygems and > ruby1.9 packages. How rubygems is managed changed a bit. See source > packages: libgems-ruby >= 1.2.0-1 and ruby1.9 >= 1.9.0.1-5. (ie, the > versions in intrepid, not hardy). If you looked at the package you'd notice that the code is based upon the latest Debian package in Intrepid (which is missing a default rubygems package BTW). Using the new 'operating_system.rb' override facility simplifies the package immensely by getting all the policy defaults in one place as well as allowing the user home area gems facility to work that is currently crippled by the Debian packaging. The user home area gem system is used by the 'gems:install' task within Rails 2.1 -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
2008/8/1 Mathias Gug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to with 'packages' -
> the rubygem package ?
The Debian/Ubuntu dpkg package.
> What does the "gem from source" do ? Install in /usr/bin/ ? In
> /var/lib/gems/ruby1.{8,9}/bin ? How does "gem from source" handle the
> scenario you've outlined above ?
Source gem installs executable wrappers (essentially programmatic
symbolic links that select the correct gem executable) directly into
/usr/bin and stores gem libraries in the main ruby library area.
(/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8)
The way it deals with the version clash is that by default 'uninstall'
doesn't remove the executable wrapper.
That leads to the alternative bug of the program appearing to exist in
/usr/bin but but being unable to find the appropriate gem library
after you have done:
gem1.8 install
gem1.8 uninstall
So after a while your system ends up with a load of garbage wrappers
on the disk.
--
Neil Wilson
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 08:23:02AM -, Neil Wilson wrote:
> Linking to /usr/local/bin sounds appealling until you do the following
> rather reasonable sequence of events.
>
> Install 1.8 Gem
> Install 1.9 Gem
> Uninstall 1.8 Gem.
>
> Result is no link in /usr/local/bin and the user installing gem from
> source again 'cos those packages don't work properly'.
I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to with 'packages' -
the rubygem package ?
What does the "gem from source" do ? Install in /usr/bin/ ? In
/var/lib/gems/ruby1.{8,9}/bin ? How does "gem from source" handle the
scenario you've outlined above ?
> However that doesn't get away from the problem of dpkg packages failing
> to inform gem that they exist so that gem pulls (and compiles!) gems it
> doesn't really need. That discussion is probably a separate bug.
Agreed. Feel free to open a new bug.
--
Mathias Gug
Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 12/07/2008, mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given the continuing intransigence of the debian maintainers, I've been > wondering if it isn't time for a bunch of Ruby folk who use > debian/Ubuntu to put together an alternative Ruby release as a single > .deb that actually works properly. That work has already started mathew. I work at Brightbox, which you'll know as the UK Ruby on Rails host. We really need apt and gem to play nicely together for our next generation of Rails services. So I've kicked off the ~ubuntu-ruby and ~ubuntu-ruby-backports groups on Launchpad to try and drive work into improving the Ruby and Rails packaging systems (along with lots of other stuff to do with our virtualisation offering). There are packages in the PPAs there - mostly straight backports at present. I've already talked to Eric Hodel who looks after Rubygems and he has put installation hooks into edge Rubygems to allow us to call out pre- and post- install if we want. If there is community interest in helping us improve Rubygems (ie you're going to do some coding/testing/documenting, not just cheer on from the sidelines) then I'll upload the current work to github and we can take it from there. -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 28/05/08 at 19:21 -, Neil Wilson wrote: > On 28/05/2008, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For each Debian package where a gem also exists, you would have to > > modify the Debian package to use the alternatives system. That clearly > > doesn't work. > > Why not? Take a given Debian package. How will you determine if this package might be coinstalled with a gem providing the same binary at some point? Will you just ask all packages providing ruby apps with executables to switch to the alternatives system? > Surely that should be part of the packaging wrapper for a package that > is also a rubygem and which generates executables. (which would > include putting the appropriate data files in the gem data area to > tell gem that the facility is installed so that gem dependencies work > correctly). How do you deal with non-ruby packages having the same name as a binary from a gem? Name clashes will happen for sure. > It's all about making the debian packages co-operate with gem. They > can co-operate through the alternatives system and avoid standing on > each others toes. That really doesn't seem like a possible solution to me. It's also too complicated for users: most users don't know anything about the alternatives system. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 28/05/08 at 19:01 -, Neil Wilson wrote: > On 28/05/2008, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That would require hacking rubygems quite deeply. If rubygems provided > > some hooks that we could use to implement distro-specific stuff, why > > not. But it's not the case, AFAIK. > > Not really. It's a relatively straightforward program to follow and > Eric is quite helpful really. I don't perceive a big issue in getting > gem to issue the appropriate 'update-alternatives' command. To be > honest it could probably do with a pre/post hook system. See my other mail on the topic: update-alternatives won't work, because you would have to modify all Debian packages that might provide the same binary as a gem. > > What is the problem with installing to /usr/local/bin? It's in the > > default system path, and it's before /usr/bin and /bin. > > That's one problem. gem installed systems would then override apt > installed systems and I'm not sure that is where we want to go. I think it is where we want to go: if an admin installs stuff manually, that's probably because the things provided by the distro don't suit his needs. So the distro stuff should be overriden by default. > > > That way it would work with gem1.9 as well. Apt packages could > > > override with a higher priority. > > > > If we install to /usr/local/bin, and you gem1.9 update --system, you > > will get a new gem executable in /usr/local/bin, that will "override" > > (by precedence in the path) Debian's. > > You mean 'gem1.9 update' (gem1.9 update --system updates rubygems and > should be disabled) no, I meant --system. By "That way it would work with gem1.9 as well.", I thought you meant "gem1.9 could be overriden as well". > Do we want that? If you install an apt package shouldn't that be the > one the system uses (from a stability point of view). > > The problem I see is when gem1.8 and gem1.9 are on the same system. If > you install a gem in 1.8, then install it in 1.9 a remove in 1.8 will > remove the 1.9 binary in /usr/local/bin By default, gem installs binaries to /usr/bin. The /var/lib/gems/.../bin hack is Debian-specific, see the second part of http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-ruby-extras/packages/libgems-ruby/trunk/debian/patches/01_default_gem_path.dpatch?op=file&rev=0&sc=0 So this problem (co-installation of gems with binaries for 1.8 and 1.9) is a rubygems problem, not a Debian one. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 28/05/2008, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For each Debian package where a gem also exists, you would have to > modify the Debian package to use the alternatives system. That clearly > doesn't work. Why not? Surely that should be part of the packaging wrapper for a package that is also a rubygem and which generates executables. (which would include putting the appropriate data files in the gem data area to tell gem that the facility is installed so that gem dependencies work correctly). It's all about making the debian packages co-operate with gem. They can co-operate through the alternatives system and avoid standing on each others toes. I would think that apt packages generated would be those where gem normally compiles (like mongrel). In which case there is a dependency on the ruby version and the binary should really be called 'mongrel_rails1.8' anyway. I would suggest that gem installs its binaries in /var/lib/gems/1.x/bin. Packaging creates packages for each version of ruby (eg. mongrel1.8, mongrel1.9), installs the binaries as /usr/bin/1.x and alternatives is used to create /usr/bin/ -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 28/05/2008, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That would require hacking rubygems quite deeply. If rubygems provided > some hooks that we could use to implement distro-specific stuff, why > not. But it's not the case, AFAIK. Not really. It's a relatively straightforward program to follow and Eric is quite helpful really. I don't perceive a big issue in getting gem to issue the appropriate 'update-alternatives' command. To be honest it could probably do with a pre/post hook system. > What is the problem with installing to /usr/local/bin? It's in the > default system path, and it's before /usr/bin and /bin. That's one problem. gem installed systems would then override apt installed systems and I'm not sure that is where we want to go. > > That way it would work with gem1.9 as well. Apt packages could > > override with a higher priority. > > If we install to /usr/local/bin, and you gem1.9 update --system, you > will get a new gem executable in /usr/local/bin, that will "override" > (by precedence in the path) Debian's. You mean 'gem1.9 update' (gem1.9 update --system updates rubygems and should be disabled) Do we want that? If you install an apt package shouldn't that be the one the system uses (from a stability point of view). The problem I see is when gem1.8 and gem1.9 are on the same system. If you install a gem in 1.8, then install it in 1.9 a remove in 1.8 will remove the 1.9 binary in /usr/local/bin -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 28/05/08 at 14:59 -, Rocco Stanzione wrote:
> Can we nix the personal attacks please. I don't know what policy, if any, is
> responsible for this, but as far as I can tell no other package installs
> files in /usr/local/bin, and I don't think they should. See the FHS:
> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLOCALLOCALHIERARCHY
Actually, you see it the wrong way. Gem (the package) should be
installed in /usr/bin. But files from gems, instead with the gem1.{8,9}
command, are not in any Debian package. And it's not reasonable at all
to install them in /usr/bin. (because, then, they could overwrite files
from Debian packages without warning).
> I figure there are 3 reasonable options, which could be checked against the
> packaging policies:
> * Install executables in /usr/bin
no, risks overwriting files from Debian packages.
> * Add the gem bin path to $PATH
forbidden by policy, not do-able in Debian
> * Install symlinks in /usr/bin
no, risks overwriting files from Debian packages.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
--
Add rubygems bin to PATH
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 28/05/08 at 15:33 -, Neil Wilson wrote: > OK. > > So patch to gem1.8 to call update-alternatives with a lowish priority > whenever it fiddles with '/var/lib/gems/1.8/bin'. > > Similarly to gem1.9. > > Now what about the corresponding apt-package. Let's say we have > 'mongrel' installed via gems with the alternatives system pointing > /usr/bin/mongrel_rails to the gem version. Then we install the apt > package and there is a name clash. If something has been packaged that > is also a ruby gem how do we do the naming for the binaries? For each Debian package where a gem also exists, you would have to modify the Debian package to use the alternatives system. That clearly doesn't work. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 28/05/08 at 14:25 -, Neil Wilson wrote: > 2008/5/28 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Installing to /usr/local/bin could sound acceptable to me. Not sure if > > that will be acceptable for the other ruby maintainers in Debian. > > Could this be solved with the alternatives system I wonder. The gem > installations are after all alternatives to apt packages. That would require hacking rubygems quite deeply. If rubygems provided some hooks that we could use to implement distro-specific stuff, why not. But it's not the case, AFAIK. It could bite us back, by breaking things in subtle ways. What is the problem with installing to /usr/local/bin? It's in the default system path, and it's before /usr/bin and /bin. > That way it would work with gem1.9 as well. Apt packages could > override with a higher priority. If we install to /usr/local/bin, and you gem1.9 update --system, you will get a new gem executable in /usr/local/bin, that will "override" (by precedence in the path) Debian's. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
OK. So patch to gem1.8 to call update-alternatives with a lowish priority whenever it fiddles with '/var/lib/gems/1.8/bin'. Similarly to gem1.9. Now what about the corresponding apt-package. Let's say we have 'mongrel' installed via gems with the alternatives system pointing /usr/bin/mongrel_rails to the gem version. Then we install the apt package and there is a name clash. If something has been packaged that is also a ruby gem how do we do the naming for the binaries? 2008/5/28 Rocco Stanzione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Now that's not a bad idea. I hadn't thought of using the alternatives > system. > > -- > Add rubygems bin to PATH > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 > You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber > of the bug. > -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
2008/5/28 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > No, but I'm getting annoyed by your tone in this whole discussion. I Well I'm sorry that you feel that way. I'm not here to upset anybody. I'm here to get a problem that has been annoying me and probably about 9000 others for the last two to three years fixed once and for all. However from where I'm sat, and the others who have diligently reported this fault time and time again, there appears to be an impasse that makes no sense to us. And that is what is making me tetchy because I can see no need for it. Let's make gem and apt play nicely together and everybody wins. Particularly you Lucas because I've read the public background and I know you've put your heart into it. I'm sure you want it fixed as much as I do. So if you want to say 'no' to something, great, but please offer an alternative so we can make progress towards a proposal that works for everybody. Now what do you think about using the alternatives system? -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
2008/5/28 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Installing to /usr/local/bin could sound acceptable to me. Not sure if > that will be acceptable for the other ruby maintainers in Debian. Could this be solved with the alternatives system I wonder. The gem installations are after all alternatives to apt packages. That way it would work with gem1.9 as well. Apt packages could override with a higher priority. -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 28/05/08 at 13:38 -, Neil Wilson wrote: > Now you're getting desperate. No, but I'm getting annoyed by your tone in this whole discussion. I already spent a lot of time on this rubygems stuff, despite not being interested at all in rubygems (I ship my ruby libs as tarballs AND gems, and I don't use rails). -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 28/05/08 at 13:38 -, Neil Wilson wrote: > Now you're getting desperate. All packages depend upon the setting of > PATH to work at all. You can hardly leave it blank can you. > > The alternative is to alter the package to allow gems to write the > binaries to /usr/bin where they belong. Installing to /usr/local/bin could sound acceptable to me. Not sure if that will be acceptable for the other ruby maintainers in Debian. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
Now you're getting desperate. All packages depend upon the setting of PATH to work at all. You can hardly leave it blank can you. The alternative is to alter the package to allow gems to write the binaries to /usr/bin where they belong. Which policy would you prefer to change? 2008/5/28 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 28/05/08 at 12:42 -, Neil Wilson wrote: >> Have you looked at the filesystem of an Ubuntu Hardy machine recently? >> You might want to take a look. > > base-files (4.0.1ubuntu2) hardy; urgency=low > > * Implement LSB-3.1, 16.2 (/etc/profile.d). Addresses LP #102105. >According to Debian policy 9.9 (Environment variables), programs >installed by packages must not depend on environment variables >to get reasonable defaults. Do not use this LSB feature to set >or modify environment variables. > > -- Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:27:17 +0100 > -- > | Lucas Nussbaum > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | > | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | > > -- > Add rubygems bin to PATH > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 > You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber > of the bug. > -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
On 28/05/08 at 12:42 -, Neil Wilson wrote: > Have you looked at the filesystem of an Ubuntu Hardy machine recently? > You might want to take a look. base-files (4.0.1ubuntu2) hardy; urgency=low * Implement LSB-3.1, 16.2 (/etc/profile.d). Addresses LP #102105. According to Debian policy 9.9 (Environment variables), programs installed by packages must not depend on environment variables to get reasonable defaults. Do not use this LSB feature to set or modify environment variables. -- Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:27:17 +0100 -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
Have you looked at the filesystem of an Ubuntu Hardy machine recently? You might want to take a look. 2008/5/28 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > See #18808 about /etc/profile.d/ ... -- Neil Wilson -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 145267] Re: Add rubygems bin to PATH
Kevin DuBois: > perhaps it would be better to have the package install symlinks to > directories already in $PATH or to modify the build the package so > that it is installed to somewhere in $PATH The catch is, Debian/Ubuntu doesn’t control the files that can come in the installed gems, so can’t assure there aren’t any clashes in their filenames (I can easily create a gem that will ship a ‘cp’ binary and upload it to RubyForge) – hence RubyGems can’t symlink files in /var/lib/gems/1.8/bin from any dpkg-handled location. (Now that I look at my $PATH, it seems /usr/local/bin is there by default, so maybe symlinks from there would make it all work. Still, adding /var/lib/gems/1.8/bin somehow to the $PATH seems the better solution – although I know it’s not simple to implement.) -- Shot -- Like most computer techie people, I'll happily spend 6 hours trying to figure out how to do a 3 hour job in 10 minutes.-- James Cort, asr -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
