From: cilibrar@... (Rudi Cilibrasi) Date: 2004-09-27T22:14:24+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby extconf.rb / autoconf (in?)compatibility Hi again everybody, Unfortunately, Tim's solution is proving to be hard to understand; it really isn't a simple system he's made, and his configuration scripts have so many dependencies that I can't even get the package to configure on my Debian unstable system. I am working with Tim privately via email to try to get the problems installing his stuff straightened out, but while we do this I would like to reiterate the question: Is there any way to adjust the installation-paths that will be used in the Makefile generated by ruby extconf.rb ? Nobu has already pointed out that the problem is that these paths are determined at ruby install time. I also reached the same conclusion some time ago. The question is how do I fix it? The reason I need to do it is so that a non-root user can install my software package in their home directory. Is this simply impossible in the current system? DESTDIR is not a complete solution because it does not offer enough flexibility in customizing the paths. To me this seems to suggest a basic functionality void in the ruby installation system. What is the right way to do it? It seems to much to ask someone to install their own version of ruby in their homedir just so they can install packages using mkmf / extconf.rb. One idea that occured to me is to create a customized rbconfig.rb to override the standard one, but I am not even sure how to do this without actually overwriting the real systemwide rbconfg.rb file. Is there some way to load my own custom rbconfig.rb instead of the default one that is system wide so that extconf.rb will install my package in different paths? I really need help with this problem as it has been troubling me for over a year, and none of my Ruby projects are packaged well enough for the users I am targetting. It's really the only limitation I have had serious trouble with so far. I would hate to redo much of the functionality of extconf.rb but it seems like something like this will be necessary unless we can figure out a) is there critical functionality missing from the current mkmf system? (or am I just missing a simpler solution?) and b) what can we do to fix it? Cheers, Rudi