[Bug 34840] Re: Rails needs gems
The problem isn't specific to rails. I do a lot of development that requires Ruby libraries not available from the repos, and some of those in turn depend on rubygems. It's analogous to cpan for Perl (which is packaged) and pretty much ubiquitous among Ruby developers. I've installed rubygems on every Ubuntu machine I've ever used, without taking any of the precautions others have taken, and I've never had a problem. I know there are potential problems, but Ruby developers ought to be free to take that risk. PS. Other than this, I take great pains to to restrict myself to the package management system, which is only plausible because the vast majority of what I need is available that way. -- Rails needs gems https://launchpad.net/bugs/34840 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 34840] Re: Rails needs gems
"Rubygems has many issues which were raised on ruby mailing lists but never addressed by the rubygems developers. It's therefore not possible to have rubygems-based packages in Debian or Ubuntu. For more details, refer to : http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html " I'm not sure what you mean Lucas. That page specifically states that Debian will have a rubygems package with which you can install gems: "For Ruby developers requiring bleeding edge library versions or libraries that haven’t been packaged (yet), a rubygems package will be made available. This package provides the gem command to be able to install/remove gems at the developer’s own discretion and risk. The gems will be installed using the normal gem installation procedure, in usr/lib/ruby/gems." This sounds just like what we need. I don't understand why Ubuntu can't use the same mechanism or package as Debian. Not having access to gems basically makes it very cumbersome to develop web apps using rails. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for repackaging gems into Ubuntu packages. But it's not going to be feasible to keep up with the gems available or repackage all of them. To take a real example, I can't find any Ubuntu package that provides an authentication system for rails, even though there are many gems available for that: http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/Authentication I suppose for the time being an intermediate solution is to use the rubygems package in Debian: deb http://www.sgtpepper.net/hyspro/deb unstable/ deb-src http://www.sgtpepper.net/hyspro/deb unstable/ Cheers, Daniel -- Rails needs gems https://launchpad.net/bugs/34840 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 34840] Re: Rails needs gems
Lucas, is there any reason why we can't just sync the rubygems package from Debian experimental? What state is it in? -- Rails needs gems https://launchpad.net/bugs/34840 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 34840] Re: [Bug 34840] Re: Rails needs gems
On 8/21/06, Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It sounds like philosophical issues. In which case we either need: > - ubuntu packages for alle the different rails & ruby add-ons, without gems > - onofficial packages for gems (perhaps in universe, for all I care) > > Although, since it isn't a liscense issue, I do feel debian/ubuntu > shouldn't push their architecture that much. Freedom as in free beer, > freedom as in free free speech, FREEDOM AS IN CHOICE. > > Its their choice not to _support_ it. But can/should they really _ban_ > it? Single it out and say 'you can't come to our party' Can't we just > put it in universe? Or do they have to 'like' all the software there as > well? Should it even be about this? I'm confused. Yes, it's all about choice, yours, mine, and theirs. As I understand it, the gem architecture just doesn't fit the debian 'contract' which requires among other things adherence to debian's standard for file system layout. It's insistence on the debian standard for debian packages which is the key behind debian's reputation for seamless package maintainance and system upgrades. There are quite a few debian packages whose upstream code is modified by the debian maintainer to place things in the right places. Often this is just a matter of configuring the build. I haven't looked into the matter in detail, but I think that those who make decisions about packaging ruby for debian are of the opinion that reconfiguring gems this way is either impossible or just too hard. Now, for our freedom. Just because software isn't packaged for debian, doesn't mean that it can't be installed on a debian system like Ubuntu. I've installed both Ruby and rubygems from source on my Ubuntu machines, and although I didn't attempt to put the artifacts where they would be for a debian package, I did configure them to go into places which would be safe from being clobbered by maintainence of the packaged software on the machine. Places like /usr/local are save havens. And there's sometimes a benefit to doing installs outside of packages. Sometimes although debian package upgrades don't clobber the file system, they do mess you up when the package maintainer doesn't understand upstream upgrade requirements well enough. I've got a plone site on one of my machines, which died when I upgraded from Ubuntu Breezy to Dapper a few weeks ago, which upgraded zope and plone, and I'm still trying to figure out how to get it back. Once I recover it, I'm looking to replace zope/plone with a rails-based CMS. -- Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ -- Rails needs gems https://launchpad.net/bugs/34840 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 34840] Re: Rails needs gems
It sounds like philosophical issues. In which case we either need: - ubuntu packages for alle the different rails & ruby add-ons, without gems - onofficial packages for gems (perhaps in universe, for all I care) Although, since it isn't a liscense issue, I do feel debian/ubuntu shouldn't push their architecture that much. Freedom as in free beer, freedom as in free free speech, FREEDOM AS IN CHOICE. Its their choice not to _support_ it. But can/should they really _ban_ it? Single it out and say 'you can't come to our party' Can't we just put it in universe? Or do they have to 'like' all the software there as well? Should it even be about this? I'm confused. -- Rails needs gems https://launchpad.net/bugs/34840 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
