On Dec 15, 2003, at 22:09, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
> 'site_ruby' implies libraries, not documentation.

I think I disagree, but I'll bow to Matz.

To me, site_ruby is stuff that's global to a site (things that have 
been installed locally, but that are available to all local users). The 
standard lib/1.8 stuff are files that are global, but that are managed 
as part of the base Ruby install. This way, the stuff in site_ruby is 
protected against change when new minor releases of Ruby are installed.

Because of this, I want to support three directories in the standard 
search path for ri:

1. The system one, where documentation distributed with Ruby is stored
2. The site one, where admins store documentation on stuff that''s 
available site-wide, and
3. The user one, which is under a user's home directory, and which 
doesn't require root access to write to.

So, if I'm a user and type

   ri Array   - it looks it up in the system one
   ri DBI      - in site
   ri MyClass - in my local one

(assuming DBI was installed site-wide and MyClass is just local)

> Also,
> the "dbi-0.0.20" documentation is independent of the *Ruby* version, 
> so it
> shouldn't be buried in 'site-ruby/1.8' somewhere.

Actually, not true (typically). When you install a package under (say) 
Ruby 1.6, it won't be available under 1.8 unless you reinstall it. I 
want the documentation to have the same behavior.

Thanks for the discussion: it's helping clarify my thinking.


Cheers

Dave