On 2008-02-11T15:05:12-0700, ChadDavis wrote:
> I noticed that ~/bin is not on my PATH by default. Why does debian not do
> this? And is it a bad idea to add it to the PATH?
Debian does not install any programs in home directories, so there is no
need to add the ~/bin to PATH. If you want bina
Note: It would be best if you'd change the subject header when changing
the subject of a message to the list.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:05:12PM -0700, ChadDavis wrote:
> I think the Debian policy in this case would guide you only if what
> you're doing is for all users of the system. If
>
> I'd also ask, which I forgot in my first response to your question, is
> this something that needs to be done for all users on your system or is
> it a personal script?
>
> I think the Debian policy in this case would guide you only if what
> you're doing is for all users of the system. If you
> I'll be mulling this over, I'm sure, I can't let a good problem like
> this rest ;) So, hopefully sooner than later, it will get solved.
>
I figured out the problem. To recap, I was trying to use the shebang
notation to specify that ruby should be used to execute the script. Common
thing. h
Am 2008-02-08 13:58:57, schrieb Ken Irving:
> It sounds bizarre to me. I think you mentioned following some directions
> somwehere, so maybe you missed something? I don't have
> /etc/alternatives/ruby1.8
> on my system; what does it point to? It's probably a symlink, or maybe a
> chain
> of se
ChadDavis wrote:
Side bar:
As i was just trying to clean up my hackish maneuvers in /usr/bin, I
noticed that there are two packages installed. One is ruby and one is
ruby1.8. The plain ruby seems to do little more than install a ruby
link to the versioned ruby binary. Is this all it does?
Side bar:
As i was just trying to clean up my hackish maneuvers in /usr/bin, I noticed
that there are two packages installed. One is ruby and one is ruby1.8. The
plain ruby seems to do little more than install a ruby link to the versioned
ruby binary. Is this all it does? What do you call this
>
>
> Putting the original executable in /etc/alternatives is not a good idea.
> The script you put in /usr/bin may get overwritten at some point, with
> a security update, but still be at version 1.8, so you'd end up without
> your wrapper, at least, and perhaps still running the binary you moved
Bob McGowan wrote:
Ken Irving wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 02:02:30PM -0700, ChadDavis wrote:
First of all, I have wrapped my ruby binary in wrapper script as just
indicated. the wrapper script is called "ruby1.8" and here's the
< elided stuff >
So, I guess the questions are:
1. Do you
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 03:31:54PM -0700, ChadDavis wrote:
>
> Then I probably am not following what you're doing. You don't
> show the shebang lines in this message, but I thought you wanted
> your application to use a custom wrapper script, and not run the
> packaged ruby1.8 dire
ChadDavis wrote:
Then I probably am not following what you're doing. You don't show the
shebang lines in this message, but I thought you wanted your application
to use a custom wrapper script, and not run the packaged ruby1.8
directly.
On my system /usr/bin/ruby1.8 is a bin
Ken Irving wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 02:02:30PM -0700, ChadDavis wrote:
First of all, I have wrapped my ruby binary in wrapper script as just indicated.
the wrapper script is called "ruby1.8" and here's the contents:
#!/bin/sh
export RUBYOPT=rubygems
exec /etc/alternatives/ruby1.8 "$@"
>
> Then I probably am not following what you're doing. You don't show the
> shebang lines in this message, but I thought you wanted your application
> to use a custom wrapper script, and not run the packaged ruby1.8 directly.
> On my system /usr/bin/ruby1.8 is a binary, and not a shell script as
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 02:58:04PM -0700, ChadDavis wrote:
>
> > #!/bin/sh
> > export RUBYOPT=rubygems
> > exec /etc/alternatives/ruby1.8 "$@"
>
> Do you really want to quote the argument list?
>
> I got that directly from the debian policy manual example. I didn't do
> it for any
> > #!/bin/sh
> > export RUBYOPT=rubygems
> > exec /etc/alternatives/ruby1.8 "$@"
>
> Do you really want to quote the argument list?
>
I got that directly from the debian policy manual example. I didn't do it
for any real reason. I'm not scripter, so I'm unaware of how this would
impact stuff.
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 02:02:30PM -0700, ChadDavis wrote:
> First of all, I have wrapped my ruby binary in wrapper script as just
> indicated.
> the wrapper script is called "ruby1.8" and here's the contents:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> export RUBYOPT=rubygems
> exec /etc/alternatives/ruby1.8 "$@"
Do you
I've started using wrapper scripts to set environment variables that are
required by individual applications, as per the debian policy manual. I've
encountered a problem that seems to arise out of some difference between
using the wrapper script and hitting the binary directly. It involves a
ruby
17 matches
Mail list logo
