On 24/05/08 at 06:29 -0000, Neil Wilson wrote: > I think it would be better if Ubuntu started packaging Ruby in the way > that people who use it actually require. > > Explain to a real user why they need to do 'apt-get install gem' > rather than 'apt-get install ruby' to be able to use Ruby properly. > They look at you daft and go off and use CentOs or Gentoo instead > where you can install ruby 1.9 and gem just works. > > This "if you don't like it you can lump it" attitude is not at all > helpful to those who need to use the distribution to get real things > done.
Ah ah. > - The Ubuntu packages need to support the gem database. For example, > currently apt Mongrel does not tell gem that it is installed which > stops the mongrel cluster gem installing properly. That requires me to > use a compiler in the real world and is a clear example of the failure > of the current Debian Ruby binary packaging mechanisms. Apt must keep > the gem database up to date if it is a package that has come from Gem > so that Gem doesn't get confused and the gem dependencies work for gem > packages not in the apt database. Right. I'm waiting for your patch. > - We need a better way of packaging gems with apt - preferably > automatically in the majority of cases. That means getting away for > the esoteric CDBS Makefile system and embracing Rake which somebody > constructing gems can understand and include in their system. Gem is > merely a source packaging system like tar with a relatively primitive > binary generation system. Apt is so much more powerful. Yet there are > 2500 gems and next to no apt packages. That demonstrates the failure > of the current packaging model. I'm waiting for your patches here as well. > - The notion that when a system adminstrator installs Gems they > *don't* want the binaries on the system path is silly. Packaging is > about automation and I'm sick to death of having to do manual > alterations to the system path just because of somebody's incorrect > idea of how the world is. If gems is installed then the bin needs to > go on the system path (at the end - after /usr/games) automatically. Here too. Please send a patch. > On 24/05/2008, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Feel free to install ruby from sources if you don't like the way it's > > packaged in Debian/Ubuntu. So you get the same amount of support for > > ruby and third party libs you install through gems. > > No, I think it is time that the packaging system changed to support > real users doing real Ruby in the real world. There are plenty of > instances where Ubuntu has altered its policy compared to Debian. It > is preferable that the two are aligned but where there is a clear > problem with the solution offered by Debian then Ubuntu has the option > of going in a different direction. That is probably where this is > going if a solution can't be worked out. At the end of the day code > talks. Yes, exactly. Stop talking, write a patch. > Nobody in Ruby (which is mostly Rails these days) is seriously using > the apt packages currently constructed because they are not fit for > purpose. It's strange, then, too see Ruby's popcon score. Probably they installed it by mistake. > Rails is just completely wrong, Mongrel is deficient as > pointed out above, there is no ferret package. I can just about use > the database libraries until I need a gem that depends on them - then > it all goes pear shaped. Not good enough when your business depends > upon it. > > > (Btw, interesting post on this topic: > > http://www.madstop.com/ruby/ruby_has_a_distribution_problem.html ) > > That's the usual technique of a clique grasping at information that > appear to support their position despite the overwhelming tide of > evidence against them. Lol. > That evidence is Ruby people avoiding Debian > and Ubuntu and picking other distributions because their Ruby support > is superior, or installing compilers on their servers and using gem > because it is just so much easier. > > What that article is really saying is that we need pragmatic > integration between apt and gem now. And that means realising Gem is a > *source* repository that just happens to have a simple cross platform > binary creator and a dependency system. It has advantages over apt in > some cases (allowing multiple versions of Rails on a single system for > example), but it useless in other regards (no postinst scripting, > appalling native code support and a disregard for FHS). > > The systems need to work together efficiently and I've got some > reasonable well formed thoughts about how that should happened and I > know that you're doing something similar because I've been reviewing > what you've said in public. Sure. Try to talk to the gems developer about that. I'm sure they will listen to you. You might want to have a look at the ML archives first, though, it's not like we tried. But I'm not going to engage with another hateful discussion with the rubygems developers. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- gem1.9 - require 'rdoc/template' fails - missing dependency https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/228345 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs