[#7055] More on VC++ 2005 — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>

Okay. I've got Ruby compiling. I'm attempting to get everything in

17 messages 2006/01/05
[#7058] Re: More on VC++ 2005 — nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@...> 2006/01/06

Hi,

[#7084] mathn: ugly warnings — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)

Hi,

22 messages 2006/01/10
[#7097] Re: mathn: ugly warnings — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...> 2006/01/10

Hadmut Danisch wrote:

[#7098] Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/10

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#7118] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/12

*Dean Wampler *<deanwampler gmail.com> writes:

[#7226] Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>

Hello,

23 messages 2006/01/28
[#7228] Re: Question about massive API changes — Caleb Tennis <caleb@...> 2006/01/28

>

Re: [PATCH] Ruby 1.9 and FHS

From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...>
Date: 2006-01-23 14:08:19 UTC
List: ruby-core #7188
On 22:25 Mon 23 Jan, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 23/01/06, Kirill A. Shutemov <k.shutemov@sam-solutions.net> wrote:
> > Build and install system changes:
> >
> > FHS:
> >
> > - pure-ruby files install separete from ruby extentions(binary).
> >   /usr/share/ruby/X.Y for *.rb
> >   /usr/lib/ruby/X.Y for *.so
> >
> > - ruby headers install to /usr/include/ruby/X.Y/
> >
> > Non-FHS:
> >
> > - vendor-specific ruby-modules dirs. It's useful for a distribution. We
> >   have three type of ruby-modules:
> >   1. stdlib
> >   2. vendor-specific(a ruby modules prepared for a distribution)
> >   3. user's modules which installed by hand
> 
> I don't think that this is a useful modification. If a particular
> repackager wants to use this, feel free, but I think that the current
> installation layout is more than sufficient and is overall better for
> its cleanliness.o

I don't think that scrap-heap of header, rb and binary files is very
cleanliness.

> If you want something more applicable that makes it useful to
> repackagers and people who couldn't care less about the Linux-specific
> FHS (e.g., anyone using Windows or a Unix other than Linux), make it
> something which can be applied with a specific configure option (e.g.,
> --enable-fhs-install). Even when I use Linux, if I'm installing from
> source, I don't necessarily want to follow FHS, and your patch *only*
> allows for FHS installs on Linux.
> 
> Also, your change to --with-sitedir is not appropriate, since binary
> extensions can end up there.
> 

I can add code to configure.in code to allow user specify rubyincludedir, 
archdir, rubylibdir, sitelibdir, sitearchdir. Is it what you want?

-- 
Kirill A. Shutemov				Belarus, Minsk
E-mail:	k.shutemov (AT) sam-solutions.net
JID: kas (AT) altlinux.org
ICQ: 152302675

The only "ism" Hollywood believes in is plagiarism.
		-- Dorothy Parker

In This Thread