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 address hidden> 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 address hidden>   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: <email address hidden>             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |