[#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: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2006-01-23 15:39:44 UTC
List: ruby-core #7191
On 23/01/06, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:
> On 1/23/06, Kirill A. Shutemov <k.shutemov@sam-solutions.net> wrote:
> > I don't think that scrap-heap of header, rb and binary files is very
> > cleanliness.
> I agree.  I keep going into /usr/include to look for the Ruby headers.
>  I really don't see why we need to bunch everything in
> $(prefix)/lib/ruby/X.Y other than that we make it easy for ourselves
> with the X.Y versioning.  That would have to be dealt for each
> directory we install into if it was ever separated.

Except that Ruby is pre-FHS, and FHS is a provincial standard not
accepted by everyone in the Linux world in any case. Quite honestly,
FHS is a mess and isn't something to be strived for. If you want
something more useful, follow the BSD structure as a guide. But Ruby,
since it's highly portable, should best be handled by Ruby.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca


In This Thread

Prev Next