On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

# On Tuesday, December 16, 2003, 3:29:54 PM, Yukihiro wrote:
# 
# > Hi,
# 
# > In message "Re: Where to install documentation"
# >     on 03/12/16, Dave Thomas <dave / pragprog.com> writes:
# 
# |>> 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?
# 
# > It should be done by RubyGems, i.e. gems installer should switch
# > installing directory depending on how it's going to install.  When a
# > gem is installed as a part of system's packages, the gem (including
# > documents) should be installed to the standard place.  Otherwise, it
# > should go to site_ruby directory.
# 
# That is an interesting comment that I don't fully understand.  Can you
# elaborate, Matz?  Chad, what do you think?
# 

I believe what Matz means (correct me please, matz) is that Gems that are 
a standard part of the Ruby distribution (like RDoc, for example), should 
install their docs under the Ruby tree (/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/doc, or 
what-have-you) and that Gems that aren't part of the standard ruby 
distribution should put their docs in site_ruby somewhere.

Makes sense to me, if I'm reading correctly.

I'm guessing this means that matz would prefer to install the actual 
libraries in the same manner for gems.  We'll need to move things around a 
bit if that's the case.

Chad