Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > In a pristine system (chroot, vm, etc.) in Wheezy as of 2012-12-17 > > (ruby 4.9, ruby1.9.1 1.9.3.194-5, rails3 3.2.6-1): > > ... > > Install ruby and rails3: > > # apt-get install ruby rails3 > > Ruby and Rails 3 are both installed. Test them by creating a new project: > > $ rails new test1 > > ... > > run bundle install --local > > /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/fileutils.rb:247:in `mkdir': Permission denied - /var/lib/gems/1.9.1 (Errno::EACCES) > > ... > > Obviously the attempt to make a directory down /var/lib isn't > > intended. > > I just tried this on a clean sid chroot, and the only way I could > reproduce this problem was by manually removing /var/lib/gems/1.9.1 as > root. Did you by any chance do that? No. It was just as I stated. A pristine debootstrap of wheezy as of that date gave me the above results. Of course that was 2012-12-17 and things have changed some. And you are using Sid instead of Wheezy. I will queue up a recreation of this using the current bits both in Wheezy and Sid and make an updated report. > > http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Rails3 > > Actually the checklist complete, but only for sid. This means that for > now only sid has a complete Rails stack. Unfortunate for Wheezy. But for Sid, "Yay!" Progress! For my purposes I will be rejoicing if Ruby and Rails are predictably installable and have security upgrades available in any Debian track. Of course Stable would be desired gold standard but Unstable/Sid is fine. Everything must start somewhere. > There are two main parts missing from wheezy: > > - the asset pipeline part could not get in wheezy on time because of the > nodejs thing¹ Yes. That is understandable. But as long as there is a known good recipe to accomplish this it is okay. > - it was not possible to rebuild all packages to get > rubygems-integration support on time. I managed to upload at least the > ones required for a working rails stack (without the asset pipeline) > before the freeze, and those got into wheezy. Yes. Thank you. However while those will be useful to applications that are okay without them it does mean that in general Rails is not happy in Wheezy. That isn't to say that your efforts to get into there what you could while you could are not beneficial. It is great. Unfortunately for me it doesn't seem sufficient yet. I am not complaining about that and am happy to push forward into Wheezy, Backports or Sid as needed. Just trying to "keep the whiteboard updated" with the current status and trying to use it as soon as it is in a useful state. > I think I mentioned this before, but here it goes again. My personal > plans are to get the missing bits into wheezy-backports once it is > available, or into an unnoficial repository, so that we do have a full > rails 3 stack available for wheezy. Yes. And I have your last message handy in my mailbox[1]! Which is why I was trying out Wheezy and reported the above results. Some combination of the above would be most excellent. I think your plan is quite reasonable. However things are not happy as of the time of my report. I would like to help get them into that good shape. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2012/08/msg00017.html > > I am sure that there is only very limited use of those packages > > because there are zero bug reports against them. :-) > > Yep. :-) Again, I think everyone here would like to work together and make this happen. It isn't trivial or it would have come together already. It is because of the upstream design a difficult problem. But I am confident that it will eventually work out. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature