On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:52:26PM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
> 
> On Dec 16, 2003, at 0:35, Minero Aoki wrote:
> >>I have to say I really dislike this: I know it's probably "standard",
> >>but is ends up spraying files all over the filesystem. It would seem 
> >>so
> >>much more sensible to store files under a common subtree, so that
> >>removing Ruby from a system takes no more than an rm -rf. Having used
> >
> >We already have these files:
> >  $prefix/bin/ruby
> >  $prefix/bin/irb
> >  $prefix/bin/erb
> >  $prefix/lib/ruby/
> >  $prefix/lib/libruby*
> >  $prefix/man/man1/ruby.1
> >
> >rm -rf does not work here.
> >
> 
> Agreed - it is currently quite messy. However, things such as 
> $prefix/bin and the man stuff are all dictated by the Unix environment. 
> I'd rather not increase the mess when I add in the RDoc stuff. But 
> there's clearly something I'm missing here. Is there an advantage to 
> putting stuff under /usr/share?

one is very obvious - stuff in /usr/share can be (NFS) shared accross
different architectures. /usr/lib can be shared only between
binary compatible machines .. unless you want to resort to messy
tricks.

Richard