You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@thrift.apache.org by Bryan Duxbury <br...@rapleaf.com> on 2008/11/11 18:11:56 UTC
Why do Ruby libs still install in site_ruby?
We already have code in the Ruby libraries for packaging as a gem.
Gems are clearly the preferred method of managing libraries in the
Ruby world. So why does "make install" in the ruby lib put the bare
library code in site_ruby? This strange arrangement makes it really,
really easy to get yourself confused when developing on the ruby
libs, since the site_ruby install takes precedence over any gem install.
Is anyone relying on this site_ruby installation behavior, or is it
something we can just get rid of?
-Bryan
Re: Why do Ruby libs still install in site_ruby?
Posted by Bryan Duxbury <br...@rapleaf.com>.
cd lib/rb
rake package
ls pkg/
tada!
On Nov 11, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Ben Taitelbaum wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> A gem would actually really help me, as it would allow me to keep
> track of a versioned dependency on thrift.
>
> - -Ben
>
> On Nov 11, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Bryan Duxbury wrote:
>
>> We already have code in the Ruby libraries for packaging as a gem.
>> Gems are clearly the preferred method of managing libraries in the
>> Ruby world. So why does "make install" in the ruby lib put the
>> bare library code in site_ruby? This strange arrangement makes it
>> really, really easy to get yourself confused when developing on
>> the ruby libs, since the site_ruby install takes precedence over
>> any gem install.
>>
>> Is anyone relying on this site_ruby installation behavior, or is
>> it something we can just get rid of?
>>
>> -Bryan
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkkZ1k8ACgkQcbwI7gfD0FWCcwCeP5yYCvOYsuktKGvl26C5XJqb
> 1lsAn2g7vGFltmy+AjU5Fy8MCKVIjwDN
> =DGiQ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Why do Ruby libs still install in site_ruby?
Posted by Ben Taitelbaum <bt...@cs.oberlin.edu>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
A gem would actually really help me, as it would allow me to keep
track of a versioned dependency on thrift.
- -Ben
On Nov 11, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Bryan Duxbury wrote:
> We already have code in the Ruby libraries for packaging as a gem.
> Gems are clearly the preferred method of managing libraries in the
> Ruby world. So why does "make install" in the ruby lib put the bare
> library code in site_ruby? This strange arrangement makes it really,
> really easy to get yourself confused when developing on the ruby
> libs, since the site_ruby install takes precedence over any gem
> install.
>
> Is anyone relying on this site_ruby installation behavior, or is it
> something we can just get rid of?
>
> -Bryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkkZ1k8ACgkQcbwI7gfD0FWCcwCeP5yYCvOYsuktKGvl26C5XJqb
1lsAn2g7vGFltmy+AjU5Fy8MCKVIjwDN
=DGiQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Why do Ruby libs still install in site_ruby?
Posted by Bryan Duxbury <br...@rapleaf.com>.
I'd be satisfied with a configuration-based option that defaults to
gems.
On Nov 11, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Kevin Clark wrote:
> I'm relying on `make install` being able to install libs to an
> arbitrary directory (which is then slurped by the packaging system at
> powerset). The site_ruby method is still useful for groups packaging
> multiple language libraries.
>
> I'd be happy to make this a configure time option, and default to
> gems.
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Bryan Duxbury <br...@rapleaf.com>
> wrote:
>> We already have code in the Ruby libraries for packaging as a gem.
>> Gems are
>> clearly the preferred method of managing libraries in the Ruby
>> world. So why
>> does "make install" in the ruby lib put the bare library code in
>> site_ruby?
>> This strange arrangement makes it really, really easy to get yourself
>> confused when developing on the ruby libs, since the site_ruby
>> install takes
>> precedence over any gem install.
>>
>> Is anyone relying on this site_ruby installation behavior, or is it
>> something we can just get rid of?
>>
>> -Bryan
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kevin Clark
> http://glu.ttono.us
Re: Why do Ruby libs still install in site_ruby?
Posted by Kevin Clark <ke...@gmail.com>.
I'm relying on `make install` being able to install libs to an
arbitrary directory (which is then slurped by the packaging system at
powerset). The site_ruby method is still useful for groups packaging
multiple language libraries.
I'd be happy to make this a configure time option, and default to gems.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Bryan Duxbury <br...@rapleaf.com> wrote:
> We already have code in the Ruby libraries for packaging as a gem. Gems are
> clearly the preferred method of managing libraries in the Ruby world. So why
> does "make install" in the ruby lib put the bare library code in site_ruby?
> This strange arrangement makes it really, really easy to get yourself
> confused when developing on the ruby libs, since the site_ruby install takes
> precedence over any gem install.
>
> Is anyone relying on this site_ruby installation behavior, or is it
> something we can just get rid of?
>
> -Bryan
>
--
Kevin Clark
http://glu.ttono.us