From: Intransition Date: 2010-04-21T00:58:08+09:00 Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposing a Ruby Packaging Standard In response josh and zimbatm regarding setup.rb. I carried on development of that project here: http://proutils.github.com/setup. It can now run as ordinary bin, or, of course, it can be included as a project script when specifically necessary. Point responses to zimbatm's post > * data/ is copied in #{PREFIX_DIR}/share (like /usr/share). Why not name it "share" then ? I would agree, but rbconfig.rb refers to it as 'datadir'. > * conf/ is copied in /etc. Why not name it "etc" then ? The latest versions of setup.rb have renamed that to etc/. > * setup.rb multi-project layout is probably a bad idea. Package management should handle this Latest versions of setup.rb no longer support multi-project layout. The most problematic issue I had with working on setup.rb was with documentation. FHS standards would indicate that the packages documentation be copied to /usr/share/doc/{name}/ (using standard system prefix), However, unless Ruby projects use doc/{name}/ (just like lib/{name}/) then it's not very feasible b/c there is no standard way to get the name of the project. Right now it looks in either .setup/name or .meta/name (or without dot) as a stop-gap measure for lack of any other option. If anything comes out this process, beyond just writing down current common practices, maybe it would be this doc/{name}/ convention. On the other hand, maybe it's time to give setup.rb and the whole FHS style of program installation the kiss of death.