On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:46:34 -0700 Mathias Gug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 05:58:39PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:01:26 -0700 Mathias Gug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... >> >The make a parallel with python, the gem command is similar to >> easy_install. >> >> Which we generally patch into submission when we find it. In Debian/Ubuntu >> if ezsetup is installing external Python modules it's bug. > >Do you mean that ezsetup tries to install debian packages of the python >modules ?
No ezsetup tries to download and install modules from outside the packaging system. Ideally we'd patch that out and the provide proper dependencies to proper packages through the package management system. >> >Neil's proposal is to improve the gem command (from the libgems-ruby >> >package) so that binaries are installed in /usr/local/bin (thus they're >> >on the default path). If you'd use install gems from the upstream >> >source, binaries would be installed in /usr/bin/. The goal is that gems >> >installed by the gem command don't interfere with ruby libraries and >> >binaries installed by debian packages. >> >> Do you mean NOT on the default path then? > >No. The binaries included in the gem are installed in /usr/local/bin/, >which is on the default PATH. Doesn't that mean they'll get used in place of installed system packages? >> >Upstream provided the necessary hooks to do so and Neil used the >> >update-alternatives system to handle multiple version of gems being >> >installed in /usr/local/bin/ rather than /usr/bin/. >> > >> It does sound like progress. As long as we aren't actually packaing the >> gems themselves it seems like a reasonable way to go until Ruby Gems grows >> enough features to support proper integration of gems into the distro >> package space. > >Exactly. Neil's proposal is *not* aimed at integrating gems with the >distro package space but rather improve gem installation from source so >that it doesn't conflict with distro packages. Proper integration is a >long-term goal and we're looking at the Intrepid timeframe. > >The current rubygem package provides a gem command that installs gem >binaries in /var/lib/rubyX.Y/bin/ which is not part of the default PATH. >Neil's proposal uses update-alternative to make these binaries available >in /usr/loca/bin/ so that they're located in the default PATH. End >users won't have to modify their environment and gems will work OOTB. > I can see how this doesn't conflict from an installation perspective, but unless I misremember where that is in the path, it will be used in place of anything provided through the distro. Am I missing something? Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu