[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Progress with rails?

Hi guys,

 have you made any progress with the rails package?  I have interest in
 this application, but since I saw you working on it I haven't put much
 time into a package.
 I haven't figured out the rubygems thing.  What I mean is that IMO Ruby
 packages in Debian should work as far as possible as Perl packages in
 Debian.  From what I have seen after poking around rubygems, it creates
 its own namespace (e.g. packages are installed under a directory that's
 not in the defaul $:).  Rubygems seems like a nice idea if you are
 installing packages on your own, but rather inconvinient for a
 distribution.  My initial reaction was to bend rubygems to do the right
 thing Debian-wise, but after reading ruby-policy I wasn't sure what the
 "right thing" is.  Contrast ruby-policy with perl-policy: ruby policy
 allows for packages for different ruby versions to coexist (the
 libfoo-ruby1.8 thing), which makes upgrades troublesome, there's a
 mention of -ruby packages, but there's no policy on what to upgrade,
 how to upgrade or when to upgrade; ruby-policy is not clear on what the
 hash bang should look like ("you are free to" is not policy); there's
 no clear distinction between architecture dependent and independent
 modules; there's no rationale for the
 /usr/lib/ruby/<X>.<Y>/<GNU-SYSTEM> thing; documentation policy is
 absent; ruby followed the libfoo-ruby mistake and it isn't clear on
 naming (e.g. is the proper name for Ruby on Rails "rails",
 "rails-ruby", "ruby-on-rails", "ruby-on-rails-ruby" or what?).

 On the mailing list I saw two or three people working on rubygems
 packages, but from what I saw there isn't even a concensus on what the
 package should be called, even less about what it should do.

 Care to shed some light on this?


Reply to: