Towards a Fedora Ruby appserver

[Mohammed Morsi]

  On 10/28/2010 11:26 AM, Robin Bowes wrote:
> On 28/10/10 15:43, Michael Stahnke wrote:
>> I'd say there is quite a different audience between ruby user (puppet,
>> redmine or something) vs a ruby developer.
> Yes, I would agree. The point I was trying to make is that the average
> ruby user just wants to be able to do "yum install app-that-uses-ruby"
> and for it to work. They are not bothered about the same issues that
> devs are. Therefore, I think Fedora should default to this (what I
> perceive to be) most common use-case, but also make it easy to use rvm
> as well/instead.
>
Well this is currently the case with Fedora. Any developer can install 
rubygems and rubygem-rvm and configuring their system using rvm from 
there on out. I would think anything which we might do from here on 
wouldn't affect this, as developers could always fallback to using gem / 
rvm manually.

>> If you look at the rails rumble from 2 weeks ago, less than 2% of
>> systems used were Fedora/CentOS.  That's quite sad.  Most used Ubuntu,
>> and I am guessing just installed ruby gems and built the rest from
>> source, as Ubuntu's ruby stack IMHO, is in worse shape than that of
>> Fedora.
> I would imagine that's largely due to Ubuntu's percevied "coolness" and
> the fact that CentOS/RHEL/Fedora has a very old Ruby version. Indeed,
> some projects won't support ruby 1.8.6 making it difficult to use them
> on Fedora/CentOS. For example, capistrano. This statement from the
> maintainer on ruby 1.8.6:
>
> "it is effectively obsolete; and given it's age, and the catalog of
> problems I certainly won't go out of my way to support it here."
>
> R.
Agreed, we were on 1.8.6 for too long. F14 (shipping next tuesday) will 
have 1.8.7 and I'll start to looking into resuming what needs to be done 
for Ruby 1.9 (parallel or not) in the near future.

   -Mo