[Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers] Re: Common Position on RubyGems

Lucas Nussbaum lucas at lucas-nussbaum.net
Fri Nov 4 09:21:35 UTC 2005

On 03/11/05 at 19:06 +0900, Daigo Moriwaki wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have had conversations with Paul on packaging RubyGems for a year. My
> private `rubygems` package is available:
> deb http://www.sgtpepper.net/hyspro/deb unstable/
> deb-src http://www.sgtpepper.net/hyspro/deb unstable/

I added a note about it on the website.

> I received a patch from a user and updated it today.
> Comment on the site
> > For Ruby developers requiring bleeding edge library versions or
> > libraries that haven’t been packaged (yet), a *rubygems* package will
> > be made available. This package provides the gem command to be able to
> > install/remove gems at the developer’s own discretion and risk. The
> > gems will be installed using the normal gem installation procedure, in
> > usr/lib/ruby/gems.
> I wonder if files in /usr/lib should be under control of dpkg (deb)
> because of Debian Policy.
> How do you think?

I tried to ask on IRC but received no answer. I added a note about this
on the website too.

> Is there an answer for the order of Load Path: site-ruby, system-ruby,
> gem-ruby?

I think it's irrelevant as long as we have both 'require' and
'require_gem' : require searches in the standard ruby paths, while
require_gem only searches in /usr/lib/ruby/gems/.

The problem will arise if require_gem becomes require.
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas at lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas at nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

More information about the pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list