Bug 203800

Summary:	sitedir should point to /usr/lib/site_ruby and not /usr/lib64/site_ruby
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4	Reporter:	Kostas Georgiou <k.georgiou>
Component:	ruby	Assignee:	Akira TAGOH <tagoh>
Status:	CLOSED DEFERRED	QA Contact:	BaseOS QE <qe-baseos-auto>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	4.4	CC:	eng-i18n-bugs, hyclak, lutter
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2010-06-22 06:41:33 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Kostas Georgiou 2006-08-23 19:45:08 UTC

sitedir should point to /usr/lib/site_ruby, as it is it's impossible to have a
ruby noarch rpm.

$ ruby -rrbconfig -e "puts Config::CONFIG['sitedir']"
/usr/lib64/site_ruby

Comment 1 Kostas Georgiou 2006-10-20 12:38:06 UTC

ping

Comment 2 Matt Hyclak 2006-11-21 21:59:12 UTC

Seems this was fixed in Fedora (#184199). Any chance this will be fixed in a
future release of RHEL?

Comment 3 Kostas Georgiou 2006-11-21 22:28:54 UTC

Yes it's already fixed in Fedora so RHEL5 should be OK (I haven't checked yet
though). For RHEL4 I am recompiling the Fedora rpms which solves the problem but
obviously a "supported" fix from RedHat would be nice.

Comment 4 Akira TAGOH 2006-11-22 04:27:12 UTC

Yes, RHEL5's ruby is exactly the same as FC6's. so that should works as I didn't
get any bugs on FC6 :)
For RHEL4 updates, it's too late to propose an update for RHEL4.5 now. so we'll
propose this for next next update. just FYI.

Comment 6 RHEL Program Management 2008-02-01 19:12:32 UTC

This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion, but this component is not scheduled to be updated in
the current Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. If you would like
this request to be reviewed for the next minor release, ask your
support representative to set the next rhel-x.y flag to "?".

Comment 7 Jens Petersen 2010-06-22 06:41:33 UTC

Closing since looks like this will not get fixed in RHEL4 longlife.