FUDCon:Milan 2011 - Ruby SIG meeting

Tejas Dinkar tejasdinkar at gmail.com
Fri Sep 23 09:38:10 UTC 2011

Shoot. I didn't see this mail before I sent out the other mail I sent out.

On a side note related to this, I have packaged both ruby-build and rbenv
for fedora, and are available here[1] and here[2].

The former is still waiting for approval from the fedora system, while the
latter I need to open a review request for

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735672
[2] http://tejas.fedorapeople.org/rbenv/rbenv.spec

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Emanuel Rietveld <codehotter at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 09/22/2011 07:52 PM, Hugh Brock wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:37:33PM -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 03:02:10PM -0400, Mo Morsi wrote:
> >>>> This is a small part of what I mention above. One of the things we
> >>>> discussed was a complete separation of things like specific versions
> of
> >>>> Rails (and other gems) from version of Fedora. IOW, why should F14 be
> >>>> Rails 3.1? Why not let us run Fedora 17 with whatever version of Rails
> >>>> we choose?
> >>>>
> >>> Not sure if I'm following, you can always gem install any version of
> any
> >>> gem you choose. We are talking about the single supported stack in
> Fedora.
> >> I'm talking about completely separating Ruby gems from Fedora. So, for
> >> example, installing Fedora XX won't require rubygem-rails yy.xx.
> >> Insteadl, _all_ Ruby gems would be kept in a separate, optional yum
> >> repository. Then you could maintain the gems separately.
> >>
> >> So if you're app requires Rails 2.3.11 and farkle 3.1, even though those
> >> aren't the latest, then you could install them without having to hunt
> >> down, grab and install the RPMs (and then do the same for all
> >> dependencies) manually. The one repositoryw ould have 2.3.8, 2.3.11,
> >> 3.0.0, 3.1.0, etc. and all dependent versions available.
> > This is probably going to give fedora packagers massive heartburn, but
> > I think Darryl is on the right track here.
> >
> > To really make this work you also need a way to install multiple
> > stacks of gems on the same machine. So I need for example to be able
> > to have two different Rails apps installed, each of which may depend
> > on different and conflicting package sets, and have everything work
> > and be happy. As horrible as this is from a support standpoint, it is
> > the way the Ruby world works, and trying to get away from it is
> > swimming upstream...
> >
> > /me ducks large rocks
> >
> > --Hugh
> >
> Perhaps we can make something like rvm (or the more recent rbenv - which
> does seem simpler and more robust) central to the Fedora ruby strategy.
> They allow you to install multiple ruby versions with multiple gem
> stacks concurrently, and decide on a per-application basis what ruby
> stack to use. It would be good it if it was easy for Fedora users to
> install rvm/rbenv and multiple versions of ruby and rails via rpm and
> have it all work out of the box.
> On the other hand, it may be worth going to great lengths to ensure we
> have a single well-supported stack in that works with all the ruby
> applications we package for Fedora. Perhaps we need to make one official
> Fedora-supported stack and meanwhile make it as easy as possible to
> install additional ruby versions + gemstacks concurrently, say, from
> third party repos.
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/attachments/20110923/5ccc1038/attachment.html 

More information about the ruby-sig mailing list