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. - 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. - 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. - 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. 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. Nobody in Ruby (which is mostly Rails these days) is seriously using the apt packages currently constructed because they are not fit for purpose. 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. 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. So if you're interested in thrashing out a solution we can all work with Lucas, then I'm all ears. Drop me a note offline. -- Neil Wilson -- 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
