Ruby specfile template issues (Was: Odd mock build problem)

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 20:41:12 +0100, Oliver Andrich wrote:

> My point of view is, that ruby doesn'T provide any elaborate mechanism
> like perl for managing the site dir.

To be accurate, it lacks the "vendor" concept. It's called "site" in
the variables, and it's called "site" in the directories. "site" means
it's for things to be installed by the local system administrator at
the site of the machine. Ruby's site paths take precedence in
module/library search list. Just like Perl. So if you, as the maker of
Ruby extension packages, installed all extensions into site locations,
they would override Ruby Standard Library, too. Have fun checking
for conflicts.

> But I also think, that ruby people
> have thought carefully about it, and choosed site_ruby with care.

In the world of non-distribution based installations, the distinction
between Ruby Installation and Ruby Extensions installed on-site may be
enough. If, however, a distributor (=vendor) ships Ruby including
Extensions, it gets more complicated.

> Just to seperate the standard and core lib from 3rd party libs.

There are three parties, but only two install-locations. The "3rd party"
is the user, who would install local extensions into the same directory as
the distribution vendor does and hence might overwrite or conflict not
only with vendor's packages.

> So, you suggest to organize things as in Debian?

I leave that to the Fedora Ruby SIG, if such a thing exists.