Hello,
Here is a summary for last week on the ruby-dev mailing list.
ruby-dev:19346-19379
[ruby-dev:19354] shellwords()
Akinori Musha posted a patch for lib/shellwords.rb. It fixes a problem
that ‘’ in single quotes is regarded as a meta character.
[ruby-dev:19370] shebang line of bin/*
U. Nakamura proposed that an absolute path to installed ruby should be used
at a shebang line. Currently, the word ruby' written at a shebang line of each file inbin’ directory is replaced with ruby_install_name at installation
stage. In this proposal, the shebang line will be replaced with an absolute
path to installed ruby.
Current --
#!/usr/bin/env ruby --> #!/usr/bin/env ruby-1.6
Proposal --
#!/usr/bin/env ruby --> #!/usr/local/bin/ruby-1.6
···
–
Takaaki Tateishi ttate@kt.jaist.ac.jp
This might broke packaging, at least for RPM-enabled targets because
during RPM build a compiled binaries are installed into %buildroot/%prefix subtree
which is definitely not the same as where binaries will be after user
would install RPM package onto its system (it will be under %prefix).
···
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 08:03:00PM +0900, Takaaki Tateishi wrote:
[ruby-dev:19370] shebang line of bin/*
U. Nakamura proposed that an absolute path to installed ruby should be used
at a shebang line. Currently, the word ruby' written at a shebang line of each file in bin’ directory is replaced with ruby_install_name at installation
stage. In this proposal, the shebang line will be replaced with an absolute
path to installed ruby.
Current --
#!/usr/bin/env ruby --> #!/usr/bin/env ruby-1.6
Proposal --
#!/usr/bin/env ruby --> #!/usr/local/bin/ruby-1.6
–
/ Alexander Bokovoy
Forms follow function, and often obliterate it.
Both. I as didn’t see original post, from summary it is not obvious which
part of the path will be written in such cases. If %buildroot will be
omitted, that’s fine.
···
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 08:47:07PM +0900, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
At Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:27:48 +0900, > Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
[ruby-dev:19370] shebang line of bin/*
U. Nakamura proposed that an absolute path to installed ruby should be used
at a shebang line. Currently, the word ruby' written at a shebang line of each file in bin’ directory is replaced with ruby_install_name at installation
stage. In this proposal, the shebang line will be replaced with an absolute
path to installed ruby.
Current --
#!/usr/bin/env ruby --> #!/usr/bin/env ruby-1.6
Proposal --
#!/usr/bin/env ruby --> #!/usr/local/bin/ruby-1.6
This might broke packaging, at least for RPM-enabled targets because
during RPM build a compiled binaries are installed into %buildroot/%prefix subtree
which is definitely not the same as where binaries will be after user
would install RPM package onto its system (it will be under %prefix).
Do you mean relocatable RPM packages? If so, they can be
substituted at %post section. Otherwise, if you mean
%buildroot, it won’t be included of course.
–
/ Alexander Bokovoy
The co-locator cannot verify the frame-relay gateway to the ISDN server.
Hi,
[ruby-dev:19370] shebang line of bin/*
U. Nakamura proposed that an absolute path to installed ruby should be used
at a shebang line. Currently, the word ruby' written at a shebang line of each file in bin’ directory is replaced with ruby_install_name at installation
stage. In this proposal, the shebang line will be replaced with an absolute
path to installed ruby.
Current --
#!/usr/bin/env ruby --> #!/usr/bin/env ruby-1.6
Proposal --
#!/usr/bin/env ruby --> #!/usr/local/bin/ruby-1.6
This might broke packaging, at least for RPM-enabled targets because
during RPM build a compiled binaries are installed into %buildroot/%prefix subtree
which is definitely not the same as where binaries will be after user
would install RPM package onto its system (it will be under %prefix).
Do you mean relocatable RPM packages? If so, they can be
substituted at %post section. Otherwise, if you mean
%buildroot, it won’t be included of course.
Also, this proposition is only for the files in standard
distribution, and ruby itself isn’t relocatable under UN*X
because it contains absolute path names in $:.
Both. I as didn’t see original post, from summary it is not obvious which
part of the path will be written in such cases. If %buildroot will be
omitted, that’s fine.
FYI, ruby’s build/install process supports RPM’s scheme, fakes
top directory while installation. That is, $(prefix) means
%{prefix}, and $(DESTDIR) does %{buildroot}. They are
separated.
···
At Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:22:42 +0900, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
–
Nobu Nakada
I know this well (after all, I’m maintainer of Ruby in ALT Linux 
but
feared that this proposal would break that.
Thank you for clarification.
···
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 01:43:28AM +0900, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
Both. I as didn’t see original post, from summary it is not obvious which
part of the path will be written in such cases. If %buildroot will be
omitted, that’s fine.
FYI, ruby’s build/install process supports RPM’s scheme, fakes
top directory while installation. That is, $(prefix) means
%{prefix}, and $(DESTDIR) does %{buildroot}. They are
separated.
–
/ Alexander Bokovoy
He who laughs, lasts.