On 10/26/2009 07:15 AM, Michael Stahnke wrote:
Giving on packaging ruby because "it's hard" seems like
a horrible
idea. The primary reason I use an RPM based distro is to not have
CPAN, eggs, Pear, PECL, and gems all over the place. Yes, developers
like the newest stuff and commonly grab it from rubyforge or github.
But as system managers we have some control over what is put into
production and how to recreate the system if it has problems. I think
we should absolutely be trying to get every gem packaged that is
needed. It's the right thing to do. I'd like one package system. If
I wanted everything to be pulled from and built form source, I would
run BSD. I don't want that. I want a repeatable and enforced-state
system. I need packages. The nice thing about the package is that if
you don't want them, you certainly don't have to use them.
Fair enough - how about on the wiki page we start a packaging priority
list - on top is Ruby itself - which version is default "ruby" and which
other versions get packaged and what are their names (ie ruby-1.8.5) .
I would like to see Fedora be progressive and make 1.9.1-p243 as the
default ruby but maybe that doesn't work for the majority. Then how
does Fedora want to handle the existance of several ruby versions re
folders, gems, irb and other utilities. Version naming/handling was a
problem in another distro - I hope it can be avoided here.
I guess for F12 default ruby is 1.8.6 and too late to change anything
assuming Fedora carries a 2 yr life so we should have a 2 yr back life
of ruby versions
my recommendation for F13 (fwiw):
ruby-1.9.1 (p-243 unless a later stable appears by freeze)
ruby-1.8.6
ruby-ee (enterprise edition) ? is this freely released ?
ruby-1.8.5 ? still a need for this ?
within group package ruby:
ruby-1.9.1
? what else
within group package ruby-devel
? ruby-irb
? what else
should there be a group package ruby-server ?
ruby-?
passenger ?
rack ?