Rubygems is certainly broken again on Jaunty. Behold:
$ gem list | grep rails
rails (2.3.2)
$ rails
The program 'rails' is currently not installed. You can install it by typing:
sudo apt-get install rails
bash: rails: command not found
This is incredibly frustrating, as a dedicated Ruby/Rails
I can't read or write.
** Changed in: libgems-ruby (Ubuntu)
Status: Invalid = Incomplete
--
rubygems bin in PATH potentially breaks other applications and violates all
sense of decency in packaging.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/262063
You received this bug notification because you
This particular bug is fixed and should stay that way. Reopening old
bugs is not the appropriate way to report new problems.
** Changed in: libgems-ruby (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete = Fix Released
--
rubygems bin in PATH potentially breaks other applications and violates all
sense of
Let me weigh in as a developer who makes his living writing ruby
programs, and is also, incidentally, a big fan of APT (though I don't
have any visibility into the subtleties of the various package
management system.)
I'm not a huge fan of rubygems. I'd even go so far as to say that I
don't
There was no intent to cause a regression when we reverted the upload that
this bug is about. AFAIK, we put it back like it was.
If there's a regression from Hardy we should fix it. I'm open to
suggestions.
--
rubygems bin in PATH potentially breaks other applications and violates all
I can't freaking believe we're going to go another cycle with a broken
Rubygems. The sad thing is that Ruby has a very creative and productive
developer community that is staying on or moving to MacOS because it's
so easy to get into Linux-y Ruby development there. Rubygems comes with
Leopard!
Michael,
I appreciate your viewpoint, but unfortunately it comes from one of
inexperience. The only one here with experience of managing rubygems on
an Ubuntu server is me. I have knocking on for 200 of them at Brightbox
and 125 paying customers who disagree with your notion that they don't
need
Comparing the behavior of using install to replace /sbin/halt to /bin/ls
is apples to oranges. This is about the sane behavior of packages and
the way they are configured.
http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html - Debian's
stance, and it is valid.
Ubuntu's responsibility is to
I hear a lot of complaints, but I hear no solutions. If a user installs
a gem they expect it to work. If it doesn't then they will remove the
package and install gems from source. That is what is happening.
Users don't care about Ubuntu developers prejudices. They just want
their software
So find a sane solution.
I had a long discussion with mathiaz on IRC yesterday and proposed
alternatives. He didn't seem interested.
--
rubygems bin in PATH potentially breaks other applications and violates all
sense of decency in packaging.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/262063
You
As motu-release has decided to revert the upon, I'm marking this fix
committed. That being said, we still need to find a sane alternative, so
I don't believe we should close this bug until one exists.
Looking at the other interpreters in Debian and Ubuntu, we don't support
the usage of CPAN or
** Changed in: libgems-ruby (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released
--
rubygems bin in PATH potentially breaks other applications and violates all
sense of decency in packaging.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/262063
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
As an added note, this package installs things into /usr/local/bin,
which is explicatively disallowed Debian FHS. No package that we install
should touch /usr/local.
This entire patch is a horrible idea and poorly executed.
Moving bug to critical due to policy violation, and the possibility that
Here's the relevant section of the Debian Policy Guide
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html
9.1.2 Site-specific programs
As mandated by the FHS, packages must not place any files in /usr/local,
either by putting them in the file system archive to be unpacked by dpkg
or by
After posting that, I realize that its not clear on the specific
violation, in general, the problem is this:
Steps to Reproduce:
Install rubygems
Install any gem:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo gem install rubygems-update
Using '/var/lib/gems/1.8/bin/update_rubygems' to provide 'update_rubygems'.
Other concerns notwithstanding, this package in fact does not violate
the FHS. libgems-ruby does not itself install any files under
/usr/local, nor AIUI is it intended that this be used to create other
packages which ship files under /usr/local (or that modify /usr/local at
install time).
The
I accept your opinion on this being not being a FHS, although I still
believe having things end up in /usr/local is a horrible idea.
--
rubygems bin in PATH potentially breaks other applications and violates all
sense of decency in packaging.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/262063
You received
17 matches
Mail list logo
