Jim Menard said:
> I'm switching over to using RubyGems. I like it!
>
> When I removed the "normal" Rake install and typed "gem --remote-install
> rake", it succeeded with the message "Successfully installed rake version
> 0.3.1".
>
> It took me a while to find the "rake" executable, though. It used to go in
> /usr/local/bin/rake, but it looks like it is now in
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9/rake-0.3.1/lib/rake.
>
> Do all executables installed by gems go in the gem directory instead of
> /usr/local? If so, I would like to suggest that gems put their executables
> in
> /usr/local/ instead, so that users don't have to modify their paths by
> adding
> a new directory each time they install a new gem.

The GEMS team is debating how to handle applications at the moment. 
Multiple versions of libraries are handled fine by manipulating the Ruby
load path, but that doesn't work for commands that use PATH.  There are
several trade-offs to be made and we need it to work cross platform. 
Peruse the archives of the RubyGem developers mailing list if you are
interested in details.

Until the teams resolves that issue, there is a manual install step for
rake.  Details of that manual step are spelled out at
http://rake.rubyforge.org/ under the section "GEM Installation". 
Basically you need to run the gem_install_bin.rb script to copy the rake
script to an appropriate bin directory.

That's all.

-- 
-- Jim Weirich     jim / weirichhouse.org    http://onestepback.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)