On 14 January 2014 18:04, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> They're kept neatly tucked out of the way in /usr/lib/ruby, except for a few
> wrappers that end up in /usr/bin so that they're in the PATH.
You use your system as you wish, but that is not recommended/supported
practice. You can use other direc
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Monday 13 Jan 2014 17:58:59 Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> > I only use a few ruby packages. However, you said it yourself, ruby and
> > pacman both have different uses, my point was: do not change the content
> of
> > a dir managed by pacman
On Monday 13 Jan 2014 11:03:32 Bigby James wrote:
> That was how I discovered the multi-version dependencies: As pacman will
> only allow a single version of a package to be installed on the system at a
> given time, I was frequently alerted to "updates" of dependency gems I had
> installed. Middle
On Monday 13 Jan 2014 17:58:59 Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> I only use a few ruby packages. However, you said it yourself, ruby and
> pacman both have different uses, my point was: do not change the content of
> a dir managed by pacman, do so elsewhere. I'm not saying you shouldn't ever
> use both. In t
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:33:30PM +, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Monday 13 Jan 2014 12:59:28 Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> > IMHO, the reason why you would choose to use rubygem over pacman depends of
> > how extensive a ruby user you are. I like to have gems handled by pacman,
> > but I only use a
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Monday 13 Jan 2014 16:35:16 Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> > > For system-wide gems, I do "sudo gem install ". That works
> because
> > > I've restored
> > > /etc/gemrc so that it reads simply "gem:", instead of "gem:
> > > --user-install".
>On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Maxime Gauduin wrote:
>As I mentioned above, you can easily reverse that statement. Why throw
>Bundler and Rubygems in the mix when you have pacman? I personally think
>that having pacman-managed dirs tinkered with by another package manager is
>heresy :P I have
On Monday 13 Jan 2014 16:35:16 Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> > For system-wide gems, I do "sudo gem install ". That works because
> > I've restored
> > /etc/gemrc so that it reads simply "gem:", instead of "gem:
> > --user-install". I'm still not clear
> > on why this configuration file is altered in t
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Monday 13 Jan 2014 12:59:28 Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> > IMHO, the reason why you would choose to use rubygem over pacman depends
> of
> > how extensive a ruby user you are. I like to have gems handled by pacman,
> > but I only use a few o
On 13 January 2014 18:52, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> I'm not trying to dismiss your effort, I'm just concerned that this seems a
> little like
> duplication.
It's about options. You can experience the same thing with Python, R,
Vim, etc. I have long given up using distribution packages for Vim, i
On Monday 13 Jan 2014 12:59:28 Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> IMHO, the reason why you would choose to use rubygem over pacman depends of
> how extensive a ruby user you are. I like to have gems handled by pacman,
> but I only use a few of them and don't need to have several versions of the
> same gem. Ha
On Monday 13 Jan 2014 13:17:13 Magnus Therning wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Simon Hanna wrote:
> > Since ruby allready comes with a package manager (mentioned earlier), I
> > never downloaded anything from the aur, but used rubygems instead. My
> > question is, if we really need to h
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Simon Hanna wrote:
> Since ruby allready comes with a package manager (mentioned earlier), I
> never downloaded anything from the aur, but used rubygems instead. My
> question is, if we really need to have all these packages in the aur. Isn't
> it easier to manage
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Monday 13 Jan 2014 11:38:57 Alfredo Palhares wrote:
> > I agree with you, some ruby-packages just are a royal pain in the arse to
> > maintain. Sometimes i wish I just when with rbenv[1] and call it a day. I
> > still have some package
On Monday 13 Jan 2014 11:38:57 Alfredo Palhares wrote:
> I agree with you, some ruby-packages just are a royal pain in the arse to
> maintain. Sometimes i wish I just when with rbenv[1] and call it a day. I
> still have some packages that use the old naming convention.
>
> But like you said the wo
Since ruby allready comes with a package manager (mentioned earlier), I
never downloaded anything from the aur, but used rubygems instead. My
question is, if we really need to have all these packages in the aur. Isn't
it easier to manage everything with rubygems??
2014/1/13 Alfredo Palhares
> I
I agree with you, some ruby-packages just are a royal pain in the arse to
maintain.
Sometimes i wish I just when with rbenv[1] and call it a day. I still have some
packages
that use the old naming convention.
But like you said the worst scenerio is to deal with multiple versions, like
one fact
Hi everyone
I manage a lot of Ruby packages (~230) in AUR, updated ~150 of them
recently. I would like to share my experience with herding these
packages. Some of the issues might be similar to other language
package systems (cpan, pip, nodejs).
First it worth mention that Ruby has its own packag
18 matches
Mail list logo
