Good Morning David, Scott, On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 02:45:59PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:42:58 -0500 David Portwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > >> As long as gems are only delivering their own binaries... > >> But gems are much more, you can include complete (one or more) upstream > >> packages (I had this at one ocasion, there was this imagemagick gem and > >> this module was only working with a special imagemagick version, so it > >> shipped it together with the other cruft, but instead of installing it > >> somewhere where this imagemagick lib didn't hurt, it was just a smartass > >> and installed it in /usr/lib, overwriting the distro imagemagick). > >This is a good example of that, and it happens on more than just debian > >systems. I do however feel that Neils proposed change(s) to the gems > >package has the best intrest in mind without major changes to gem and > >apt. This is a step forward, no? > > I think that if gem was installing dependencies in a location that would > not interfere (e.g. be used instead of) installed system libraries, but > that the installed Gem could use the I could say yes to this.
Which is the case, when gem would use overlay dirs and those would LD_PRELOADED/LD_LIBRARY_PATHed properly but this is something the ruby devs should take care of. In the meantime, the whole GEM stuff is broken by design, and I don't understand people who are fighting with this. As said before, I think the best way to handle this: Never ever use any other package management system, but from the used distro. Regards, -- Stephan '\sh' Hermann | OSS Developer & Systemadministrator JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.sourcecode.de/ GPG ID: 0xC098EFA8 | http://leonov.tv/ 3D8B 5138 0852 DA7A B83F DCCB C189 E733 C098 EFA8 -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
