Chris,
Thanks for the response. I am used to package managers in systems
like Ubuntu and understand the benefits of having package managers.
But If you want to install a software like say Eclipse or Netbeans in
Ubuntu you have the flexibility of doing so either through the
package manager or by just unpacking the tarball into a directory of
your choice. Its about having an alternative if one of it does not
work or just about having the freedom to make a choice.
E.g. : When i am thrown with the below error and since I do not
understand the inner working of Rubygems, I am left with no other
option :
C:\Documents and Settings\AllUsers\Desktop> gem install rails --
version 3.0.1
ERROR: While executing gem ... (Zlib::GzipFile::Error)
not in gzip format
I was able to locate 'all in one' rails package until version 2.2.3
at http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=307 but not the newer versions.
Regards,
Shafeeq.
On Apr 8, 2:30 pm, Chris Mear <chrism...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 April 2011 09:42, Shafeeq <mohamed.shaf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip Windows proxy issues>
>
> > I am not able to make this work. I was not able to download a
> > standalone package of Rails for the version(3.0.1) I am trying to
> > install.
>
> > Any help / workaround would be appreciated.
>
> > P.S. I am unable to understand why the installation has to be only
> > through Gem.
>
> The short answer is that the 'rails' package is really just a very
> small piece of software that specifies several dependencies (i.e other
> software packages that it requires to run: activerecord, actionpack,
> etc.). These packages in turn have their own dependencies. As you've
> discovered, resolving these dependencies by hand is a pain, so we have
> a package manager specifically for Ruby packages, called Rubygems.
>
> If you're not used to package managers, it seems a bit ridiculous at
> first -- why can't the software vendor just package up everything
> necessary for a particular piece of software into one download? It's a
> very common pattern in open source software distribution (e.g. apt-get
> in Debian/Ubuntu; pypi for Python) because you might as well make use
> of shared libraries if you can (no need to redownload Rack five times
> just because five pieces of software need it), plus it absolves
> individual software maintainers from having to do all that packaging
> work every time they release -- they just specify their dependencies
> and they're done.
>
> (Having said that, I believe there are all-in-one Rails packages
> available for Windows, but I haven't used any of them for several
> years, so I don't know what the status of them is. In any case, you'll
> want to get Rubygems working so that you can install other optional
> libraries as the needs of your app demand.)
>
> The longer answer is that Ruby's dependence on the Rubygems system is
> a little controversial in certain circles (e.g. the Debian
> maintainers). There's no reason that Ruby software packages couldn't
> be released in a format that also allows for a generic standard
> installation straight into /usr/local/lib without relying on Rubygems
> for installation. Of course, you still have the problem of dependency
> resolution which you'd just have to punt to another system to handle.
> So unless you are fascinated by the politics of open source package
> management then you can ignore this paragraph. :)
>
> Chris
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
