From: Sam Roberts <sroberts@...>
Date: 2007-10-23T11:16:32+09:00
Subject: Re: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths?

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:39:07AM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> If we want a ./configure --vendor option (which really doesn't have much
> meaning for Ruby itself), ask for it. But that's *not* what was
> originally asked for; what was originally complained about was stuff
> that, frankly, Ruby doesn't have anything to do with and can't
> influence.

To the world other than Austin:

The original poster didn't "complain" about anything, he requested
clarification on recommended practice.  Ruby distributions might be more
consistent if recomendations came from upstream, rather than
cross-stream.


> when it clearly *isn't* a general case problem? It doesn't apply to
> Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Mac OS X, or Windows. It only applies to Linux
> distributions who claim special status.

All the unix variants would benefit from
advice-to-packagers. This is the first I've heard of --vendor (outside
of akr's post). As far as I know, the ./configure has all the right
options, packagers who don't know each other but do know about ruby need
to have common guidance on using them.

This isn't even a ruby-specific problem, lua has the same issues, and is
slowly trying to get consistency among packagers. Its slow because its
community is small, distros are slow to change, and mostly its users
build the code themselves, but the dicussion is rant-free.

Cheers,
Sam