ruby rails, gem packages

[John Taber]

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 ?