On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Dave Thomas wrote:

# 
# On Dec 15, 2003, at 13:38, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
# >
# > I think data for standard tools should be somewhere under
# >
# >   $prefix/lib/ruby/<ver>
# >
# > e.g. /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/doc/rdoc
# 
# Matz:
# 
# That's where I went initially, but then I got thinking. Say RubyGems 
# supports automatic installation of documentation. Should it go into 
# site_ruby?
# 

We have actually been doing the following for RubyGems (so far--we're of 
course open for suggestions):

/usr/lib/ruby/gems/#{ruby_version}/doc/#{gem_name}-#{gem_version}

...this is, of course, the standard rdoc html output--not the new ri 
intermediate form.

Actual Gems themselves are installed under:
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/#{ruby_version}/#{gem_name}-#{gem_version}

These are configurable/overridable as well.

# Perhaps I need two standard places: 1.8/doc/rdoc for the stuff in the 
# standard Ruby documentation and site_ruby/1.8/... for the system-wide 
# extra stuff. Then each user could have a ~/.rdoc directory for their 
# private stuff.

That sounds reasonable to me.  

A side note:  with RubyGems, we can have multiple versions of the same 
library installed and refer to them specifically by version if required.  
I wonder how we might integrate something like that with ri.  If you have 
multiple versions of a library installed, it makes sense that you might 
also like to be able to lookup documentation by-version, with the latest 
version being the default.  

If you were to follow the #{gem_name}-#{gem_version} naming convention, we 
could probably do it pretty simply.  What do you think?

Chad