From: Intransition Date: 2010-04-23T02:34:36+09:00 Subject: Re: Proposing a Ruby Packaging Standard On Apr 21, 2:06 am, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > 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. All true. But it does effect how one is able to access files from other files within a package, e.g. relative requires. If it were not for the limitations that the FHS design brings to bare we would have many fewer rules and worries. My personal opinion falls in line with Hisham H. Muhammad's in I am not clueless. I feel that the FHS has become largely arcane. If I had my druthers I'd much rather see the Ruby community make a concerted motion toward throwing setup.rb/FHS support right out on it's arse. And that's despite the fact that I personally spent considerable time modernizing the setup.rb code base. I believe the FHS is largely holding back progress in this area. Both Windows and MacOS X use directory package models. Linux lags behind primarily b/c it is a open/ democratic system tied to entrenched customs. As such, it can not be changed from the top down. The change must come from the bottom up -- which is much harder to do. I think scripting languages and their modern packaging systems, like RubyGems, are (no doubt inadvertently) leading the way in this "quiet" revolution. Hisham si one of few people that I think sees the writing on the wall is preparing for it (see http://mwh.geek.nz/2009/07/23/an-overview-of-systemaliens/) As far as shared data and configuration goes, btw, when it is needed, the XDG directory standard offers a much better approach.