From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...>
Date: 2010-04-21T15:06:36+09:00
Subject: Re: Proposing a Ruby Packaging Standard

On 21/04/10 at 14:55 +0900, Suraj Kurapati wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 21/04/10 at 14:01 +0900, Suraj Kurapati wrote:
> >> Will RubyGems ever follow the FHS style of installation like setup.rb?
> >> Will setup.rb ever follow the keep-everything-together RubyGems style?
> >> What installation style will this Ruby Packaging Standard follow?
> > 
> > I think that what is important is that we have a clear set of
> > guidelines for Ruby library developers to follow, that allow to do
> > both rubygems-style stuff and setup.rb-style stuff. 
> 
> It's burdensome on Ruby library developers to support both ways.

Not really. Both solutions are largely compatible. You just need to
organize the files correctly, and it just works.

> Perhaps this Ruby Packaging Standard could provide a tiny Ruby
> library to ease that burden, by making the FHS/setup.rb style
> installation appear like RubyGems style installation (i.e. how all
> files are organized inside a release package and when checked out
> from a source code repository)?

I'm not sure I understand your point. The point of setup.rb is to
respect FHS, which contradicts installing everything in the same place.
But the starting point of a setup.rb installation is the same as a
well-organized gem: if you put executables in bin/, libraries in lib/,
etc, it just works.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |