the patch seems to work okay. is a 1.9.1 package in the repository for F12 now with the openssl patch ? Also how is package naming working for the different versions (ie 1.9.1 vs 1.8.6 vs 1.9.2 - is ruby ee going to be supported in Fedora ? I'm on a couple of ruby user group mail lists so can announce it to get more feedback - not that many Fedora users n the Ruby camp - mostly Mac, but working on it:)
On 10/24/2009 05:02 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 10/24/2009 06:04 AM, John Taber wrote:
as info - I installed today's daily snapshot of openssl - ruby still failed to compile (:
for those of us that need Ruby - wondering if best short term fix is to try to install openssl .98 stable ?
I've got it, check out the attached patch.
-- Jeroen
On 11/09/2009 08:59 AM, John Taber wrote:
the patch seems to work okay. is a 1.9.1 package in the repository for F12 now with the openssl patch ?
For ruby 1.9.1 to co-exist with the current 1.8.6 a package review must be completed.
Also how is package naming working for
the different versions (ie 1.9.1 vs 1.8.6 vs 1.9.2 - is ruby ee going to be supported in Fedora ?
If we let 1.8.6 and 1.9.1 co-exist, one of them will be a compat- package (probably the 1.8.6 version will be renamed), and the binaries would have search paths appropriate for each of them.
Ruby EE is an entirely different story... Is this used much?
I'm on a couple of ruby user group mail lists
so can announce it to get more feedback - not that many Fedora users n the Ruby camp - mostly Mac, but working on it:)
I think there's a bunch of people in Fedora using Ruby though, they're just not as much part of the Ruby camp as the other people in the Ruby camp, I guess ;-)
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
On 11/09/2009 01:40 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 11/09/2009 08:59 AM, John Taber wrote:
the patch seems to work okay. is a 1.9.1 package in the repository for F12 now with the openssl patch ?
For ruby 1.9.1 to co-exist with the current 1.8.6 a package review must be completed.
since F12 is about out the door - is this scheduled ? can it be added into repository after F12 is released ?
Also how is package naming working for
the different versions (ie 1.9.1 vs 1.8.6 vs 1.9.2 - is ruby ee going to be supported in Fedora ?
If we let 1.8.6 and 1.9.1 co-exist, one of them will be a compat- package (probably the 1.8.6 version will be renamed), and the binaries would have search paths appropriate for each of them.
I think that's the right way - 1.9.1 should now be the default version though many are still running on 1.8.6. The reason people give me that they are still running 1.8.6 is that not all gems are running on 1.9.1 though that is shrinking in size
Ruby EE is an entirely different story... Is this used much?
I think it is used on some big server apps - it is supposed to be much more optimized and faster than base 1.8.6 but have not seen many comparisons to 1.9.1 and none to whatever is in 1.9.2 (wonder if 1.9.2 now includes the new big "speedup" that was recently announced.
I'm on a couple of ruby user group mail lists
so can announce it to get more feedback - not that many Fedora users n the Ruby camp - mostly Mac, but working on it:)
I think there's a bunch of people in Fedora using Ruby though, they're just not as much part of the Ruby camp as the other people in the Ruby camp, I guess ;-)
While many Ruby people develop on Macs, I doubt too many deploy to Mac servers - thus, I bet Ruby on Fedora is used more often on the server. Of course some of us run only Fedora on our MacBooks :)
On 11/09/2009 01:40 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 08:08:16AM -0700, John Taber wrote:
Ruby EE is an entirely different story... Is this used much?
I think it is used on some big server apps - it is supposed to be much more optimized and faster than base 1.8.6 but have not seen many comparisons to 1.9.1 and none to whatever is in 1.9.2 (wonder if 1.9.2 now includes the new big "speedup" that was recently announced.
Its used a fair bit with people that use Phusion Passenger and other locations that primarily want a copy-on-write friendly ruby when forking.
I'm on a couple of ruby user group mail lists
so can announce it to get more feedback - not that many Fedora users n the Ruby camp - mostly Mac, but working on it:)
I think there's a bunch of people in Fedora using Ruby though, they're just not as much part of the Ruby camp as the other people in the Ruby camp, I guess ;-)
While many Ruby people develop on Macs, I doubt too many deploy to Mac servers - thus, I bet Ruby on Fedora is used more often on the server. Of course some of us run only Fedora on our MacBooks :)
I'd say CentOS and RHEL are quite popular for deploying ruby :-). Running ruby apps on CentOS is a big part of I became a Fedora contributor. We wanted haproxy, beanstalk and nginx available as rpms, and now they are.
enjoy,
-jeremy
On 11/09/2009 04:08 PM, John Taber wrote:
On 11/09/2009 01:40 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 11/09/2009 08:59 AM, John Taber wrote:
the patch seems to work okay. is a 1.9.1 package in the repository for F12 now with the openssl patch ?
For ruby 1.9.1 to co-exist with the current 1.8.6 a package review must be completed.
since F12 is about out the door - is this scheduled ? can it be added into repository after F12 is released ?
Yes, it could, as a "future" compat- package.
Also how is package naming working for
the different versions (ie 1.9.1 vs 1.8.6 vs 1.9.2 - is ruby ee going to be supported in Fedora ?
If we let 1.8.6 and 1.9.1 co-exist, one of them will be a compat- package (probably the 1.8.6 version will be renamed), and the binaries would have search paths appropriate for each of them.
I think that's the right way - 1.9.1 should now be the default version though many are still running on 1.8.6. The reason people give me that they are still running 1.8.6 is that not all gems are running on 1.9.1 though that is shrinking in size
There's other applications written in Ruby that are incompatible with ruby-1.9.1 (although that may have already changed since I last looked). One example is (was?) Puppet, next generation, efficient and scalable configuration management. Some of these things really, really need to be resolved before ruby-1.9.1 becomes the standard.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying it's up to other people to resolve the compatibilities between foo and bar. I'm not afraid of needing fixes in some places, and I would love to sink my teeth in it.
I'm just saying that, from my perspective, with my limited Ruby knowledge, I'm reluctant to push out 1.9.1 as a default whereas a thousand-and-one applications might not work with it.
Ruby EE is an entirely different story... Is this used much?
I think it is used on some big server apps - it is supposed to be much more optimized and faster than base 1.8.6 but have not seen many comparisons to 1.9.1 and none to whatever is in 1.9.2 (wonder if 1.9.2 now includes the new big "speedup" that was recently announced.
If Ruby EE is so much more optimized, or significantly optimized to say the least, then why are these optimizations not found in Ruby itself? Do you know? Does the optimization cost anything like features or compatibility? I'm just asking, being unfamiliar with Ruby EE myself.
Furthermore, you are the first person I hear about Ruby EE. Can you point out some more information on what exactly makes this version of Ruby so EE? Any rationale, benchmarks, reviews?
I'm on a couple of ruby user group mail lists
so can announce it to get more feedback - not that many Fedora users n the Ruby camp - mostly Mac, but working on it:)
I think there's a bunch of people in Fedora using Ruby though, they're just not as much part of the Ruby camp as the other people in the Ruby camp, I guess ;-)
While many Ruby people develop on Macs, I doubt too many deploy to Mac servers - thus, I bet Ruby on Fedora is used more often on the server. Of course some of us run only Fedora on our MacBooks :)
And, let's not forget those Enterprise Linux descendants of Fedora, an often deployed platform for (large) production environments.
Thanks for your support John, I appreciate ;-)
-- Jeroen
Jeroen,
On 11/09/2009 10:29 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 11/09/2009 04:08 PM, John Taber wrote:
On 11/09/2009 01:40 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 11/09/2009 08:59 AM, John Taber wrote:
the patch seems to work okay. is a 1.9.1 package in the repository for F12 now with the openssl patch ?
For ruby 1.9.1 to co-exist with the current 1.8.6 a package review must be completed.
since F12 is about out the door - is this scheduled ? can it be added into repository after F12 is released ?
Yes, it could, as a "future" compat- package.
Also how is package naming working for
the different versions (ie 1.9.1 vs 1.8.6 vs 1.9.2 - is ruby ee going to be supported in Fedora ?
If we let 1.8.6 and 1.9.1 co-exist, one of them will be a compat- package (probably the 1.8.6 version will be renamed), and the binaries would have search paths appropriate for each of them.
I think that's the right way - 1.9.1 should now be the default version though many are still running on 1.8.6. The reason people give me that they are still running 1.8.6 is that not all gems are running on 1.9.1 though that is shrinking in size
There's other applications written in Ruby that are incompatible with ruby-1.9.1 (although that may have already changed since I last looked). One example is (was?) Puppet, next generation, efficient and scalable configuration management. Some of these things really, really need to be resolved before ruby-1.9.1 becomes the standard.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying it's up to other people to resolve the compatibilities between foo and bar. I'm not afraid of needing fixes in some places, and I would love to sink my teeth in it.
I'm just saying that, from my perspective, with my limited Ruby knowledge, I'm reluctant to push out 1.9.1 as a default whereas a thousand-and-one applications might not work with it.
I understand the issue with related packages. btw I just looked up Puppet - version 0.25.1 should be supporting 1.9.1 according to bug fix report. We're not using it but I'll ask around.
How about if I start a section of the wiki page to list out dependencies and key gems needed to move to 1.9.1 - just need to register for access - anything special I need ?
Ruby EE is an entirely different story... Is this used much?
I think it is used on some big server apps - it is supposed to be much more optimized and faster than base 1.8.6 but have not seen many comparisons to 1.9.1 and none to whatever is in 1.9.2 (wonder if 1.9.2 now includes the new big "speedup" that was recently announced.
If Ruby EE is so much more optimized, or significantly optimized to say the least, then why are these optimizations not found in Ruby itself? Do you know? Does the optimization cost anything like features or compatibility? I'm just asking, being unfamiliar with Ruby EE myself.
Furthermore, you are the first person I hear about Ruby EE. Can you point out some more information on what exactly makes this version of Ruby so EE? Any rationale, benchmarks, reviews?
I'm on a couple of ruby user group mail lists
so can announce it to get more feedback - not that many Fedora users n the Ruby camp - mostly Mac, but working on it:)
I think there's a bunch of people in Fedora using Ruby though, they're just not as much part of the Ruby camp as the other people in the Ruby camp, I guess ;-)
While many Ruby people develop on Macs, I doubt too many deploy to Mac servers - thus, I bet Ruby on Fedora is used more often on the server. Of course some of us run only Fedora on our MacBooks :)
And, let's not forget those Enterprise Linux descendants of Fedora, an often deployed platform for (large) production environments.
I think Jeremy's post addressed this. Hal Fulton (author of Ruby Way) gave a talk at the DFW users group on working with EE - that's what I know of it. We're just using 1.9.1.
Switch to 1.9.1 in F13 could be discussed at Fudcon but can't justify spending money to leave sunny warm southwest to go to cold, gray Toronto in winter - maybe a sponsored contributor going there could address it if need be.
On 11/09/2009 10:37 PM, John Taber wrote:
Jeroen,
On 11/09/2009 10:29 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I'm just saying that, from my perspective, with my limited Ruby knowledge, I'm reluctant to push out 1.9.1 as a default whereas a thousand-and-one applications might not work with it.
I understand the issue with related packages. btw I just looked up Puppet - version 0.25.1 should be supporting 1.9.1 according to bug fix report. We're not using it but I'll ask around.
How about if I start a section of the wiki page to list out dependencies and key gems needed to move to 1.9.1 - just need to register for access
- anything special I need ?
A Fedora Account System account should suffice, which you can create on https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/
A list of what we think is "the bunch of crucial gems" to the Ruby platform would be nice. This would create a soft of critical path wrt. major.minor.teeny upgrades of Ruby, where upstream does a relatively bad job at making sure teeny versions have stable API/ABI.
It's also worth noting that if ruby 1.8.6 is the default, and compat-ruby-1.9.1 becomes available, gems for 1.9.1 either need to be repackaged for 1.9.1 (as a compat package, too), or the regular "gem install" must be used (gem-1.9.1 install actually). I'm not sure yet what is the best route here, and what kind of possibilities exist. Maybe installing a .gem twice in the RPM spec suffices (once with ruby_sitedir and once with ruby_191_sitedir, in a for loop, or something).
%global ruby_versions 1.8.6 1.9.1
%install for rubyver in %{ruby_versions}; do gem-$rubyver install %{SOURCE0} done
%files -n compat-ruby-1.8.6-%{name} (...)
%files -n compat-ruby-1.9.1-%{name} (...)
Let's see what works here, and what is preferable.
While many Ruby people develop on Macs, I doubt too many deploy to Mac servers - thus, I bet Ruby on Fedora is used more often on the server. Of course some of us run only Fedora on our MacBooks :)
And, let's not forget those Enterprise Linux descendants of Fedora, an often deployed platform for (large) production environments.
I think Jeremy's post addressed this. Hal Fulton (author of Ruby Way) gave a talk at the DFW users group on working with EE - that's what I know of it. We're just using 1.9.1.
Switch to 1.9.1 in F13 could be discussed at Fudcon but can't justify spending money to leave sunny warm southwest to go to cold, gray Toronto in winter - maybe a sponsored contributor going there could address it if need be.
I'm there, so the least I can do is pitch the session -I will- and send the summary to the list. Is there anyone on the list who's going to be there?
-- Jeroen
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jeremy Hinegardner -
Jeroen van Meeuwen -
John Taber