>> I figure there are 3 reasonable options, which could be checked against the packaging policies:
>> * Install executables in /usr/bin
>
> no, risks overwriting files from Debian packages.
For what it's worth, the behaviour of the version of rubygems that comes with apt-get is so annoying that *everyone* I know ends up installing from source anyway. So this risk is there whether the packaged version of rubygems puts executables on users' $PATHs or not.If it doesn't, people will just use one that does.
The only difference is that currently if a gem overwrites a file the Debian/Ubuntu maintainers have the luxury of pointing fingers and saying, "hey, I told you not to do that."
>> I figure there are 3 reasonable options, which could be checked against the packaging policies:
>> * Install executables in /usr/bin
>
> no, risks overwriting files from Debian packages.
For what it's worth, the behaviour of the version of rubygems that comes with apt-get is so annoying that *everyone* I know ends up installing from source anyway. So this risk is there whether the packaged version of rubygems puts executables on users' $PATHs or not.If it doesn't, people will just use one that does.
The only difference is that currently if a gem overwrites a file the Debian/Ubuntu maintainers have the luxury of pointing fingers and saying, "hey, I told you not to do that."