Towards a Fedora Ruby appserver
Jeroen van Meeuwen
kanarip at kanarip.com
Thu Oct 28 23:17:36 UTC 2010
Mohammed Morsi wrote:
> On 10/22/2010 09:56 PM, Gaveen Prabhasara wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> Ruby webserver
> >> ==============
> >> Mostly passenger vs. thin vs. unicorn. Passenger has the advantage that
> >> it can be loaded as a module into httpd, but packaging it has proven
> >> somewhat interesting.
> > Phusion team promised that they'd make Passenger 3 more easy to package.
> > I haven't been able to verify that they've kept the promise. ;) However
> > with the final release of 3.0 we have another entry to this list;
> > Passenger Standalone . Given the fact it's uses an Nginx core it
> > might be worth a look for packaging.
> Passenger can't be included in Fedora as is due to legal reasons. If we
> want to ship it, we will have to hack it to remove some vendorized
> components and call it something else ("Phusion Passenger" is
> trademarked, perhaps "modrails" would work though)
Hold on, because these are directly dependent on one another;
- If we hack boost out of passenger, we may not call it Phusion Passenger any
Should we accept the fact the only hacking to be done should probably happen
upstream, and continue to consume the downstream as such then hey, we don't
have to rename it.
My goal is not even so much to get passenger to be excellent, my goal is to
prevent thousands of downstream consumers deploying their own builds and not
having an update stream (not to mention crappy compile options and all sorts
of other crap you have with one-off unique builds), and for Fedora to be where
all that momentum comes together.
If nothing else, I'll continue to distribute rubygem-passenger as part of Yet
Another add-on repository, see how people like that.
Jeroen van Meeuwen
More information about the ruby-sig