Recommended way to install Rubygems
in [Ruby]
|
From: Lucas Nussbaum on 18 Mar 2010 05:27 On 18/03/10 at 17:10 +0900, Ryan Davis wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2010, at 00:47 , Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > Which parts of ruby which are currently split out would you like to see > > installed when the user installs ruby? For example, ruby ships a ruby > > emacs mode. Installing that would require adding a dependency on emacs, > > which doesn't sound reasonable. > > That's a bullshit rationalization. See why I don't want to discuss this? ;-) -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lucas(a)lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lucas(a)nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
From: botp on 18 Mar 2010 09:12 On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas(a)lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote: > On 18/03/10 at 17:10 +0900, Ryan Davis wrote: >> >> On Mar 18, 2010, at 00:47 , Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> >> > Which parts of ruby which are currently split out would you like to see >> > installed when the user installs ruby? For example, ruby ships a ruby >> > emacs mode. Installing that would require adding a dependency on emacs, >> > which doesn't sound reasonable. >> >> That's a bullshit rationalization. > > See why I don't want to discuss this? ;-) i am w Lucas here. As to distros, i prefer debian/ubuntu when it comes to ruby. At least they (deb) are least crappy when it comes to breakage. Of course, if you want to have full control (specially in prodxn), i install by source, and only what i need (not all). Those who want all, there's a one-click i think, or anybody can just script all those.... just my 2cents kind regards -botp ps: as for nubiness, .. who says developing is easy, yes ruby is, but... ;-)
From: Nick Brown on 18 Mar 2010 10:05 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Which parts of ruby which are currently split out would you like to see > installed when the user installs ruby? For example, ruby ships a ruby > emacs mode. Installing that would require adding a dependency on emacs, > which doesn't sound reasonable. > > Anyway, I've just added the following packages to the list of packages > that are "suggested" when someone installs ruby: irb, rdoc, ri, > libopenssl-ruby, ruby-dev. > That doesn't mean that they are installed automatically when the user > installs "ruby", but the package manager will suggest to install those > packages too. Well, I don't know about emacs... I don't recall ever needing to install emacs before installing ruby even from source, but on the other hand, disk space and bandwidth are so cheap these days I wouldn't care one way or the other. But just yesterday I was trying to install mechanize (via rubygems) on my 9.10 system, and it kept failing because 'net/https' was missing. And I was scratching my head wonder why the heck a core piece of ruby like that wouldn't be there... I thought perhaps my disk was going dead on me... I eventually figured out what was up after some searching of the net, but I think this illustrates the sort of confusion that can arise. The easiest way to solve this problem would be to rename "ruby" to "ruby-core" or something, then rename "ruby-full" to "ruby". This would allow the few who want partial ruby installs to still do so, but the great masses of users (and hosting providers!) who expect the package called "ruby" to be all of ruby will be spared confusion and frustration. Also: don't let the unfriendly tone one often encounters on the internet get ya down. The medium itself seems to encourage that sort of thing... Your work IS appreciated! Keep in mind that it is Debian policy, not you personally, that seems to be the true target of the frustrations. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Brian Candler on 18 Mar 2010 10:20 > Which parts of ruby which are currently split out would you like to see > installed when the user installs ruby? For me, the biggest surprise was discovering net/https.rb was missing entirely, and wondering why on earth part of the ruby 'standard library' had vanished. Eventually I found it had been separated out into libopenssl-ruby. It's also confusing that irb, ri, rdoc are missing by default. I understand the logic, kind of. Maybe someone wants to build a tiny system with ruby but without openssl (*). Obviously it's not easy to know where to draw the line (should installing ruby force installation of tcl/tk?), but I think the majority of users are going to want net/https, readline and irb, and be surprised if they are missing. There are few systems which won't have the openssl and readline dependencies already present. So I would also vote that 'ruby' be a meta-package to pull in the complete set. Regards, Brian. (*) A similar split exists in openwrt, which is explicitly targeted at tiny systems. Indeed, they fragment it more so that you don't have to install yaml or rexml if you don't want them. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Lucas Nussbaum on 18 Mar 2010 10:21
On 18/03/10 at 23:05 +0900, Nick Brown wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Which parts of ruby which are currently split out would you like to see > > installed when the user installs ruby? For example, ruby ships a ruby > > emacs mode. Installing that would require adding a dependency on emacs, > > which doesn't sound reasonable. > > > > Anyway, I've just added the following packages to the list of packages > > that are "suggested" when someone installs ruby: irb, rdoc, ri, > > libopenssl-ruby, ruby-dev. > > That doesn't mean that they are installed automatically when the user > > installs "ruby", but the package manager will suggest to install those > > packages too. > > Well, I don't know about emacs... I don't recall ever needing to install > emacs before installing ruby even from source, but on the other hand, > disk space and bandwidth are so cheap these days I wouldn't care one way > or the other. In Debian, we do not ship software without appropriately describing what other packages are required (as dependencies) to use it. ruby1.8-elisp is a separate package that depends on emacs, so that is fine. But if we wanted to ship the content of ruby1.8-elisp inside an hypothetical full-featured ruby package, the right thing to do would be to depend on emacs. This could become an interesting issue on some of the architecture debian supports. > But just yesterday I was trying to install mechanize (via rubygems) on > my 9.10 system, and it kept failing because 'net/https' was missing. And > I was scratching my head wonder why the heck a core piece of ruby like > that wouldn't be there... I thought perhaps my disk was going dead on > me... I eventually figured out what was up after some searching of the > net, but I think this illustrates the sort of confusion that can arise. OpenSSL doesn't have a lot of fans, because of its licence that prevents it from being linked to GPL software. Yes, it could be possible to ship openssl.so and readline.so in the same package, but then it would be harder to argue that Debian does enough to protect the linking of readline (GPLv2) with openssl. The situation would be much simpler if Ruby switched to GNU TLS, for example. > The easiest way to solve this problem would be to rename "ruby" to > "ruby-core" or something, then rename "ruby-full" to "ruby". This would > allow the few who want partial ruby installs to still do so, but the > great masses of users (and hosting providers!) who expect the package > called "ruby" to be all of ruby will be spared confusion and > frustration. I really think that this problem is a minor one, and not worth all the noise around it. I'll see with the other maintainers if there's a way we can improve the situation slightly. But the licensing issues involved make me fear that it is unlikely. > Also: don't let the unfriendly tone one often encounters on the internet > get ya down. The medium itself seems to encourage that sort of thing... That's not a reason to consider it acceptable. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lucas(a)lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lucas(a)nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | |