motu-release will revert libgems-ruby to the old state.

[Dustin Kirkland]

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Mathias Gug <mathiaz at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 04:04:57PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
>>  No, I mean that it's not a policy violation to try to add the gem
>>  binary path to PATH on a best effort basis because packages will
>>  continue to work whether PATH has the gem binary patch or not.
>>
>>  I wish manually installed gems benefit the users of the system
>>  (including the admin) and services as much as possible since someone
>>  went through the hassle of installing the gems: it means they either
>>  additional software or newer software available as gems.
>>
>
> I assume you meant "it means they *want* either additional software or
> newer software available as gems".
>
> Could the following statement be considered a corollary of the above ?
>
>  Binaries installed by the administrator should take precedence over
>  binaries provided by packages.
>
> That's my interpretation of the following line in /etc/environment:
>
> PATH="/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/games"


My reading of the FHS on /usr/local/bin corroborates that.
 * http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLOCALLOCALHIERARCHY
  * "The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system administrator
when installing software locally."

If an administrator wanted to install something above and beyond the
normal Ubuntu packages, that would be his/her prerogative, and s/he
should do that in /usr/local/bin.  This could certainly happen as any
given untar/make/make-install (perhaps using --prefix), for
self-written software, or as-yet unpackaged software for Ubuntu.

:-Dustin