4 ms·

Do you have some more information about why they are broken? I'm not trying to call you out, I'm just curious and don't know much about these systems, or and c

Do you have some more information about why they are broken? I'm not trying to call you out, I'm just curious and don't know much about these systems, or and couldn't find anything when I went looking for criticisms.

vetinari 16y ago
Oh, so you probably missed the discussion between Debian and Rails two years ago. Have look there: http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/upstream-devs.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/upstream-devs.html The second link describes what is wrong with gems-only approach. See also links at the bottom of the first page.
- avar 16y ago
  The Ruby community is probably not interested in dealing with distro packages. I.e. having to get people in their forums asking about some ancient Debian stable version that's no longer supported.
- metageek 16y ago
  From the second link: ".tar.gz is the most widely used archive format on Linux. Using other formats (.tar.bz2, for example) is discouraged, as it requires additional steps for the packager." -- so fix the bleeping package system to support bzip2. I note, too, that Fedora has rubygem packages, which provide Ruby gems directly. Is there something rpm does better than dpkg here? (Not that I give a flip about Ruby; it's a terrible language. I spent about 6 months building an app in Rails; it took about 3 months to go from "this is easy!" to "but it won't let me do anything hard!".)
  - regularfry 16y ago
    > ".tar.gz is the most widely used archive format on Linux. Using other formats (.tar.bz2, for example) is discouraged, as it requires additional steps for the packager." > -- so fix the bleeping package system to support bzip2. Here you have a point. That's a fairly silly requirement. However, the rest of the recommendations in the second link are pretty solid. > I note, too, that Fedora has rubygem packages, which provide Ruby gems directly. Is there something rpm does better than dpkg here? No, it's a policy/politics thing. Gems break the FHS, so Debian pretends they don't exist. Not knowing it intimately, I don't know Fedora's approach precisely, but presumably they're either allowing FHS breakage, or patching the gems to bring them into line. Patching them is a non-small job; the number of badly-written gems out there is astounding. I say this as someone peripherally involved with patching them to make them conform to Debian's standards. > (Not that I give a flip about Ruby; it's a terrible language. I spent about 6 months building an app in Rails; it took about 3 months to go from "this is easy!" to "but it won't let me do anything hard!".) That's a shame - the limitations of Rails are not an accurate representation of the limitations of the language.
    - logic 16y ago
      Details on Fedora's policy on packaging Ruby-related items: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby

vetinari 16y ago

Oh, so you probably missed the discussion between Debian and Rails two years ago. Have look there: http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/upstream-devs.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/upstream-devs.html The second link describes what is wrong with gems-only approach. See also links at the bottom of the first page.

avar 16y ago
The Ruby community is probably not interested in dealing with distro packages. I.e. having to get people in their forums asking about some ancient Debian stable version that's no longer supported.
metageek 16y ago
From the second link: ".tar.gz is the most widely used archive format on Linux. Using other formats (.tar.bz2, for example) is discouraged, as it requires additional steps for the packager." -- so fix the bleeping package system to support bzip2. I note, too, that Fedora has rubygem packages, which provide Ruby gems directly. Is there something rpm does better than dpkg here? (Not that I give a flip about Ruby; it's a terrible language. I spent about 6 months building an app in Rails; it took about 3 months to go from "this is easy!" to "but it won't let me do anything hard!".)
- regularfry 16y ago
  > ".tar.gz is the most widely used archive format on Linux. Using other formats (.tar.bz2, for example) is discouraged, as it requires additional steps for the packager." > -- so fix the bleeping package system to support bzip2. Here you have a point. That's a fairly silly requirement. However, the rest of the recommendations in the second link are pretty solid. > I note, too, that Fedora has rubygem packages, which provide Ruby gems directly. Is there something rpm does better than dpkg here? No, it's a policy/politics thing. Gems break the FHS, so Debian pretends they don't exist. Not knowing it intimately, I don't know Fedora's approach precisely, but presumably they're either allowing FHS breakage, or patching the gems to bring them into line. Patching them is a non-small job; the number of badly-written gems out there is astounding. I say this as someone peripherally involved with patching them to make them conform to Debian's standards. > (Not that I give a flip about Ruby; it's a terrible language. I spent about 6 months building an app in Rails; it took about 3 months to go from "this is easy!" to "but it won't let me do anything hard!".) That's a shame - the limitations of Rails are not an accurate representation of the limitations of the language.
  - logic 16y ago
    Details on Fedora's policy on packaging Ruby-related items: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby