Re: status of 1.9[.3] and wheezy
On 03/10/11 14:38, Joshua Timberman wrote:
> Ohai!
>
> On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:27 AM, Alex Young wrote:
<snip>
>> Does Debian Ruby have a goal of providing a first-class deployment
>> platform for third-party Ruby applications? I would argue that
>> it's a goal not worth chasing because the libraries move too fast,
>> and that it should be made clear that the user who wants to do this
>> should be using RVM, rbenv+ruby-build or even checkinstall, and
>> make that as easy as possible to do: it's worth knocking up virtual
>> packages to install the dependencies for building the various
>> interpreters, but not the interpreters themselves.
>
> Debian has a reputation for being unfriendly to Ruby projects and
> developers. It is oft derided as a deployment platform for Ruby
> applications due to previous practices (particularly treatment of
> RubyGems bindir). The awesome work by this team for Wheezy helps
> tremendously!
Absolutely! I'm not arguing that this has been wrong in any way, but
having the infrastructure to *be able* to support a wide variety of Ruby
software does not mean that debian-ruby needs to take on the task of
packaging the world. I'd *like* to be able to point people at gem2deb
as an option for managing internal roll-outs of ruby code, but limiting
the scope of what's officially supported with a goal of eventually
getting into stable must surely help everyone's sanity :-)
>
> While I love RVM and use it on my OS X systems, I much prefer a
> package installed Ruby interpreter. Most of my Debian/Ubuntu
> deployment is to cloud-based instances, which give me multiple cores
> and gigs of memory in 2 minutes with an API call. Waiting to compile
> Ruby is sub-optimal.
This is true. Another way to tackle that would be to work with rvm or
ruby-build to make it simpler to build an interpreter .deb from the
sources and built binaries they've already got, so you can have the best
of both worlds: a prebuilt, packaged ruby at the specific version you want.
--
Alex
Reply to: