ruby rails, gem packages

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

On 10/26/2009 05:42 PM, John Taber wrote:
> 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 can. This is largely on my plate to be honest, I'm going to have to 
come up with some kind of plan.

The thing is, replacing the default ruby is not done just like that; 
there's applications dependent on one ruby version that do not 
necessarily work with the other ruby version. You cannot just bounce 
users back and forth or make them find out whatever dependencies exist 
on their own; we have too many users for that, or too few resources 
depending on how you look at it.

> 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
>

A Fedora release lives for 13 months (2 new releases + 1 month).

> 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 ?
>

I highly doubt ruby 1.8.5 is ready for gcc43 let alone gcc44. It's not 
supported by upstream in any way and so all security fixes will require 
(manual) back-porting. Unless we have sufficient volunteers, ...

> should there be a group package ruby-server ?
> ruby-?
> passenger ?

Passenger as you are undoubtly unaware of, essentially ships a fork of 
Boost. Another downside to gems ;-)

-- Jeroen