ruby 1.9.1 in fedora 12

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

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