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
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
On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Tim Olsen t...@brooklynpenguin.com 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
, 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/locall/bin.
Adam
--
Opscode, Inc.
Adam Jacob, CTO
T
On Aug 28, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Daigo Moriwaki da...@debian.org 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
5 matches
Mail list logo
