4 ms·

I feel very strongly about this. I've done good business coming in and mopping up messes after people that attempt to deploy applications this way. I'll follo

by alrs 16y ago

I feel very strongly about this. I've done good business coming in and mopping up messes after people that attempt to deploy applications this way. I'll follow up after I'm done with Christmas celebrations, but to think that a random hodgepodge of flavor-of-the-week deploy scripts slapped together by a webdev and scraped from github are somehow better or more maintainable than the collaborative output of some of the world's smartest and most committed developers is flatly-ridiculous. Follow http://planet.debian.org http://planet.debian.org for a week and tell me these people don't know what they're doing.

samdk 16y ago
RVM is hardly a 'random hodgepodge of flavor-of-the-week deploy scripts'. RVM is widely used throughout the Ruby community and for good reason. I'm really not interested in getting into some back-and-forth flamewar about this. (There's been plenty enough of that on the Debian mailing lists and elsewhere already.) I trust that the people maintaining Debian are very smart and do, in general, know what they're doing. But I don't trust that the people maintaining Debian know how to deploy Ruby/Rails better than the people in the Ruby/Rails community.
- zppx 16y ago
  I can see the value of RVM for developers, running the same code against various gemsets and versions of Ruby, I used it this way, but not for deployment, why not simply compile everything necessary by hand, install the necessary gems, say ruby 1.9.2 with rails 3.0.3 and some other gems, and them use the result to chroot personalized deploys (or containerize them) instead of installing various versions of ruby with one shell script? EDIT: Well, since you cannot answer in this thread feel free to answer in my first comment in this thread above if you wish. EDIT2: I found this article about the matter, I found it to be good, I agree with him in the large picture: http://rcrowley.org/articles/dependencies.html http://rcrowley.org/articles/dependencies.html
  - samdk 16y ago
    I'm not really sure I understand your question. RVM is a tool that can do all of that for me, and it's used and vetted by a large community. I don't know why I wouldn't use RVM. RVM automates the compilation step. I'm not sure why I'd want to do that by hand instead. Gem installation is done on a per-app basis using bundler[0] or RVM's gemsets, so the gems for each application are kept separate anyway. Running different applications on different versions of Ruby at once is also easy with project-level rvmrc files. And if for whatever reason you want different RVM installs for different users that's easy too: RVM only installs for a single user by default. Now, granted, I don't do anything like run a shared hosting service, and there may be cases where RVM lacks the flexibility to do what's required, but I've never run into them. [0] http://rubygems.org/gems/bundler http://rubygems.org/gems/bundler
  - zppx 16y ago
    Is it not simple to write a reply, like samdk did, instead of downvoting?
necubi 16y ago
I've tried developing Ruby on Ubuntu using the ruby packages, and it's been a huge pain every time. They've also handled ruby1.9 in a maddening way--with separate 1.9 binaries for everything. And rubygems is very broken (though it's probably their position that ruby libraries should be installed through apt also). I accept that their decisions were made with an eye towards users and they may well be the right ones for them. For developers, though, it's awful. Fortunately RVM gives the best of all worlds: it's consistent between distros and operating systems (I develop on OS X and deploy onto Ubuntu and Cent OS--everything works the same in both places). Switching between ruby versions is as simple as `rvm 1.9.2`. You can easily specify a ruby version to use for different scripts, ensuring that whatever is best for a particular program can be used. And most importantly, it just works. RVM is in my mind the biggest improvement to ruby development in the last couple of years. I'm sorry if the Debian packagers feel its encroaching on their territory, but it serves our needs as they do not.
nixme 16y ago
It only sounds ridiculous because you don't know the full story. We've already had a lengthy discussion on debian's packaging before, including rubygems: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1734936 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1734936 technomancy summed it up: "The rubygems devs have asked nicely to get Debian to fix these issues, and have been turned down flatly... Debian is the only distributor who breaks rubygems when packaging it." Must we go through this whole debate again?

by alrs 16y ago

samdk 16y ago

RVM is hardly a 'random hodgepodge of flavor-of-the-week deploy scripts'. RVM is widely used throughout the Ruby community and for good reason. I'm really not interested in getting into some back-and-forth flamewar about this. (There's been plenty enough of that on the Debian mailing lists and elsewhere already.) I trust that the people maintaining Debian are very smart and do, in general, know what they're doing. But I don't trust that the people maintaining Debian know how to deploy Ruby/Rails better than the people in the Ruby/Rails community.

zppx 16y ago
I can see the value of RVM for developers, running the same code against various gemsets and versions of Ruby, I used it this way, but not for deployment, why not simply compile everything necessary by hand, install the necessary gems, say ruby 1.9.2 with rails 3.0.3 and some other gems, and them use the result to chroot personalized deploys (or containerize them) instead of installing various versions of ruby with one shell script? EDIT: Well, since you cannot answer in this thread feel free to answer in my first comment in this thread above if you wish. EDIT2: I found this article about the matter, I found it to be good, I agree with him in the large picture: http://rcrowley.org/articles/dependencies.html http://rcrowley.org/articles/dependencies.html
- samdk 16y ago
  I'm not really sure I understand your question. RVM is a tool that can do all of that for me, and it's used and vetted by a large community. I don't know why I wouldn't use RVM. RVM automates the compilation step. I'm not sure why I'd want to do that by hand instead. Gem installation is done on a per-app basis using bundler[0] or RVM's gemsets, so the gems for each application are kept separate anyway. Running different applications on different versions of Ruby at once is also easy with project-level rvmrc files. And if for whatever reason you want different RVM installs for different users that's easy too: RVM only installs for a single user by default. Now, granted, I don't do anything like run a shared hosting service, and there may be cases where RVM lacks the flexibility to do what's required, but I've never run into them. [0] http://rubygems.org/gems/bundler http://rubygems.org/gems/bundler
- zppx 16y ago
  Is it not simple to write a reply, like samdk did, instead of downvoting?

necubi 16y ago

I've tried developing Ruby on Ubuntu using the ruby packages, and it's been a huge pain every time. They've also handled ruby1.9 in a maddening way--with separate 1.9 binaries for everything. And rubygems is very broken (though it's probably their position that ruby libraries should be installed through apt also). I accept that their decisions were made with an eye towards users and they may well be the right ones for them. For developers, though, it's awful. Fortunately RVM gives the best of all worlds: it's consistent between distros and operating systems (I develop on OS X and deploy onto Ubuntu and Cent OS--everything works the same in both places). Switching between ruby versions is as simple as `rvm 1.9.2`. You can easily specify a ruby version to use for different scripts, ensuring that whatever is best for a particular program can be used. And most importantly, it just works. RVM is in my mind the biggest improvement to ruby development in the last couple of years. I'm sorry if the Debian packagers feel its encroaching on their territory, but it serves our needs as they do not.

nixme 16y ago

It only sounds ridiculous because you don't know the full story. We've already had a lengthy discussion on debian's packaging before, including rubygems: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1734936 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1734936 technomancy summed it up: "The rubygems devs have asked nicely to get Debian to fix these issues, and have been turned down flatly... Debian is the only distributor who breaks rubygems when packaging it." Must we go through this whole debate again?