Comment 40 for bug 145267

On 04/08/08 at 21:02 -0000, Neil Wilson wrote:
> 2008/8/4 Lucas Nussbaum <email address hidden>:
> > Some notes in random order:
> > The install / install / uninstall problem you mention is a gem problem.
> > I think that it should be solved at the rubygem side, not specifically
> > for Debian. That's over-engineered. Have you talked to the gems
> > developers about that? Maybe you could implement a solution directly in
> > rubygems.
>
> To do that would essentially require duplicating much of the
> alternatives system within rubygems. Feel free to code that up if you
> have a few weeks or months available.
>
> So I can have a 91 line fix in the packaging and hit Intrepid or
> several hundred within rubygems which nobody seems that keen on
> writing and get nowhere.
>
> The gem installation problem is fixed within Debian Policy, the system
> is kept clean of dangling links and broken Gems and from the user's
> perspective they just see a system that works.
>
> When rubygems finally get around to implementing something that stops
> gem1.8 and gem1.9 running into each other then we can delete the two
> small procedures that implement the system.
>
> It's just a patch, Lucas, to make Gems work better in a packaging
> environment. It will allow people to switch ruby interpreters with
> greater ease. With good packaging people can do that, and that will
> give them a reason to use the packages.

No, it's a patch that makes rubygems work better on systems with
update-alternatives, while you should aim at a global solution instead.

I won't be the one making the final decision on this, but for this patch
to be added to the package, I would either want:
(a) that the patch is very, very small
(b) or that the patch is going to be integrated upstream in the near future

> > Please check what has been done in Debian recently with the rubygems and
> > ruby1.9 packages. How rubygems is managed changed a bit. See source
> > packages: libgems-ruby >= 1.2.0-1 and ruby1.9 >= 1.9.0.1-5. (ie, the
> > versions in intrepid, not hardy).
>
> If you looked at the package you'd notice that the code is based upon
> the latest Debian package in Intrepid (which is missing a default
> rubygems package BTW).

What do you mean with "default rubygems package"?

> Using the new 'operating_system.rb' override
> facility simplifies the package immensely by getting all the policy
> defaults in one place as well as allowing the user home area gems
> facility to work that is currently crippled by the Debian packaging.

If you could avoid words like "crippled" in this discussion, it would
help *a lot* and wouldn't make me consider unsubscribing from this bug.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| <email address hidden> http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: <email address hidden> GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |