On 09/22/2011 07:52 PM, Hugh Brock wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:37:33PM -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 03:02:10PM -0400, Mo Morsi wrote:
>>>> This is a small part of what I mention above. One of the things we
>>>> discussed was a complete separation of things like specific versions of
>>>> Rails (and other gems) from version of Fedora. IOW, why should F14 be
>>>> Rails 3.1? Why not let us run Fedora 17 with whatever version of Rails
>>>> we choose?
>>>>
>>> Not sure if I'm following, you can always gem install any version of any
>>> gem you choose. We are talking about the single supported stack in Fedora.
>> I'm talking about completely separating Ruby gems from Fedora. So, for
>> example, installing Fedora XX won't require rubygem-rails yy.xx.
>> Insteadl, _all_ Ruby gems would be kept in a separate, optional yum
>> repository. Then you could maintain the gems separately.
>>
>> So if you're app requires Rails 2.3.11 and farkle 3.1, even though those
>> aren't the latest, then you could install them without having to hunt
>> down, grab and install the RPMs (and then do the same for all
>> dependencies) manually. The one repositoryw ould have 2.3.8, 2.3.11,
>> 3.0.0, 3.1.0, etc. and all dependent versions available.
> This is probably going to give fedora packagers massive heartburn, but
> I think Darryl is on the right track here.
>
> To really make this work you also need a way to install multiple
> stacks of gems on the same machine. So I need for example to be able
> to have two different Rails apps installed, each of which may depend
> on different and conflicting package sets, and have everything work
> and be happy. As horrible as this is from a support standpoint, it is
> the way the Ruby world works, and trying to get away from it is
> swimming upstream...
>
> /me ducks large rocks
>
> --Hugh
>
Perhaps we can make something like rvm (or the more recent rbenv - which