Parallel installable ruby stacks

[Sergio Rubio]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello Sergio,
>
> Any proposal like this just over-complicate things. You are looking on
> Fedora from upstream developer point of view while our users just wants
> to use software. So at the end, if your application supports Ruby which
> are shipped with Fedora, then it is enough for you and for end user.
> There is important role which is plays package maintainer, specifically
> he/she has to assure that a package is compatible with distribution and
> possibly to work on that with upstream.
>
> So tell me why you need every possible version of Ruby available in Fedora?
>
> Tell me why I, as an end user, should care if you application is running
> with Ruby 1.8, Ruby 1.9, REE, Rubinius or JRuby?
> Tell me why I, as a Fedora package, should care about my gem for more
> Ruby implementations/versions?

Yes, it's a good point, and probable makes a lot of sense from a
Fedora packager point of view.

It's also true that a lot of ops and devels out there (users, in any
case) want to use Fedora/RHEL for their stacks and want to be able to
use the ruby impl they prefer (cause provided impl is old, boring, or
whatever reason) without having to resort to compiling stuff and
manually tweaking the system.

>
> Neither of that make sense to me.

It's all about adding flexibility and upstream maintained ruby
packages to Fedora while trying to hide some of the complexity and
boring stuff that (some) users have to deal with when switching ruby
implementations.

Rgds.

>
> Vit
>
>
>
> Dne 28.7.2011 12:09, Sergio Rubio napsal(a):
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I've been working lately in ruby packages for 1.8, 1.9,REE and
>> Rubinius that install in parallel and a ruby-base package that
>> basically pulls upstream ruby package (standard fedora/RHEL ruby) and
>> provides a script to switch between different ruby implementations
>> when available.
>>
>> I've also been researching the fedora project wiki but haven't found
>> anything related to something like this in the roadmap.
>>
>> So, what do you guys think about this? is this totally insane?
>>
>> There's definitely the need out there to have different ruby
>> implementations available (lots of ppl using RVM for this reason) or
>> at least give the user the choice to install any of them without
>> scarifying the benefits that native packages provides.
>>
>> I'd love to hear what do you guys think about this stuff and I'd love
>> to contribute with some sort of proposal if you guys think we can
>> waste some cycles investigating this path.
>>
>> Rgds.
>> _______________________________________________
>> ruby-sig mailing list
>> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
>