7 ms·

We very much encourage people to use the package repositories we host: http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/puppetlabs_package_repositories.html http://docs.puppe

by nigelk 14y ago

We very much encourage people to use the package repositories we host: http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/puppetlabs_package_repositories.html http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/puppetlabs_package_reposit... Are you suggesting we should drop gem support entirely andyl?

damm 14y ago
Gems are the most confusing thing to new Ruby users. Example that most people on HN will likely get, but most people in real life will ask you why? They have a point you should pay attention to. If you read most ruby books you'll get one of two patterns. 1. Install brew 2. Install libyaml in brew 3. Install rvm 4. Install ruby in rvm linked to libyaml 5. gem install x and if you need y... just get another gem that supports it. One of the core problems I've seen is most people do not grasp that a 'gem' is a package. After looking over some of the gems published to Rubygems they quickly realize the quality differs and they are at their own mercy. Now ask yourself, why would anyone who wants their product to be (useful|used) condone this? Basically it's a slippery slope, I understand both sides of the coin and I don't know what to say shrug
- npsimons 14y ago
  I'll be perfectly honest, as a Debian user/admin, I've never really saw the point of Gems. They just seem like Yet Another NIH unnecessary package format.
  - mattmanser 14y ago
    RubyGems works cross-platform?
    - nona 14y ago
      Things like nix do too. Even apt-get used to work on MacOSX (fink).
      - Blackavar 14y ago
        As long as you're on a *nix, yes. RubyGems works cross-platform, not just cross-POSIX.
  - fennecfoxen 14y ago
    This is the classic operating-system package management/programming-language library packaging dichotomy. You see the same conflict of philosophies with Perl and CPAN packages versus Red Hat / CentOS .rpms of the same package. Sysadmins frequently seem to like the operating-system approach. Developers frequently seem to like the programming-language approach.
    - npsimons 14y ago
      More honesty, my original composition was a bit more inflammatory, but I do (sort of) understand where the urge to package comes from. I've been someone who's pulled things quickly together, whether it be through CPAN or the incredibly convoluted checkout-build scripts of ROS (http://ros.org http://ros.org), and yes, very often I will clone and build things from GitHub, cause dangit, it's not packaged yet. But I've come also from the dependency hell that was GNOME on RedHat over a decade ago, and I just love the fact that I can almost always type "apt-get install $name_of_new_toy" and be playing with it in under five minutes, all without having to worry about breaking other packages or strewing files god-knows-where, or having multiple, redundant, possibly bug and security hole ridden copies of dependencies, and knowing that I can deploy it instantly on my web server. Windows and OSX also don't figure very much into my worldview, so I don't really care much that they need bolted on package managers to fix their brokenness.
      - mattmanser 14y ago
        brokenness Seriously, why even bother posting? Your view and your original question is totally worthless as it turns out you're an OS-bigot. We work in a world of logic peppered by pockets of irrational fan-boys. Is it fear of the unknown that drives you to such extreme statements? You would do much better if you just reviled them all equally as I do. Windows is shit. Macs are shit. Linux is shit. All programming languages are shit. Though I profess a special hatred for javaschipt. That's built its own little corner of hell. Computers are items of vast wasted potential covered in liberal amounts of poorly implemented shit. And the best we can do for the next 50 years is mine it and clear it gradually away as we uncover the occasional nugget of gold in festering piles of, well, you know what.
  - nona 14y ago
    I mostly agree, except for the ability to install multiple versions of the same gem or package at the same time.
andyl 14y ago
nigelk - yes, it think using Package Repos exclusively would be a win for Puppet. Fewer install options to confuse new users, simpler support model for your developers. BTW I do use your repositories. For me, they have proven to be more reliable than the Gem install. One of the things I like about Vagrant's installer is that he packages an embedded ruby version and installs it at /opt/vagrant/embedded. Vagrant plugins are installed at /opt/vagrant/embedded/gems. (using 'vagrant gem') This is sweet, because the whole Vagrant environment is isolated from the rest of the system. By contrast, the Puppet installer depends on a system ruby. It puts ruby 1.8.7 on my path, which I don't want. Then I've got to take special effort not to use it or corrupt it. Yukk. So if I were King - Puppet would use Package Repos exclusively, and depend on its own isolated/embedded Ruby.
- nigelk 14y ago
  Thanks for the feedback andyl. We're thinking very much about the direction of embedding all dependencies, but we're also conscious of the needs of the Linux distros, who don't package software that way. There is a downside to having all your apps embed their dependencies. It becomes significantly more complicated to update libraries in response to vulnerabilities and bugs.
  - andyl 14y ago
    I've never seen an apt package that embeds ruby like Vagrant does. But - it works! (my dev platform is Ubuntu 12.04) Perhaps you don't need to embed all dependencies - just Ruby. Good luck in thinking this thru!

by nigelk 14y ago

damm 14y ago

Gems are the most confusing thing to new Ruby users. Example that most people on HN will likely get, but most people in real life will ask you why? They have a point you should pay attention to. If you read most ruby books you'll get one of two patterns. 1. Install brew 2. Install libyaml in brew 3. Install rvm 4. Install ruby in rvm linked to libyaml 5. gem install x and if you need y... just get another gem that supports it. One of the core problems I've seen is most people do not grasp that a 'gem' is a package. After looking over some of the gems published to Rubygems they quickly realize the quality differs and they are at their own mercy. Now ask yourself, why would anyone who wants their product to be (useful|used) condone this? Basically it's a slippery slope, I understand both sides of the coin and I don't know what to say shrug

npsimons 14y ago
I'll be perfectly honest, as a Debian user/admin, I've never really saw the point of Gems. They just seem like Yet Another NIH unnecessary package format.
- mattmanser 14y ago
  RubyGems works cross-platform?
  - nona 14y ago
    Things like nix do too. Even apt-get used to work on MacOSX (fink).
    - Blackavar 14y ago
      As long as you're on a *nix, yes. RubyGems works cross-platform, not just cross-POSIX.
- fennecfoxen 14y ago
  This is the classic operating-system package management/programming-language library packaging dichotomy. You see the same conflict of philosophies with Perl and CPAN packages versus Red Hat / CentOS .rpms of the same package. Sysadmins frequently seem to like the operating-system approach. Developers frequently seem to like the programming-language approach.
  - npsimons 14y ago
    More honesty, my original composition was a bit more inflammatory, but I do (sort of) understand where the urge to package comes from. I've been someone who's pulled things quickly together, whether it be through CPAN or the incredibly convoluted checkout-build scripts of ROS (http://ros.org http://ros.org), and yes, very often I will clone and build things from GitHub, cause dangit, it's not packaged yet. But I've come also from the dependency hell that was GNOME on RedHat over a decade ago, and I just love the fact that I can almost always type "apt-get install $name_of_new_toy" and be playing with it in under five minutes, all without having to worry about breaking other packages or strewing files god-knows-where, or having multiple, redundant, possibly bug and security hole ridden copies of dependencies, and knowing that I can deploy it instantly on my web server. Windows and OSX also don't figure very much into my worldview, so I don't really care much that they need bolted on package managers to fix their brokenness.
    - mattmanser 14y ago
      brokenness Seriously, why even bother posting? Your view and your original question is totally worthless as it turns out you're an OS-bigot. We work in a world of logic peppered by pockets of irrational fan-boys. Is it fear of the unknown that drives you to such extreme statements? You would do much better if you just reviled them all equally as I do. Windows is shit. Macs are shit. Linux is shit. All programming languages are shit. Though I profess a special hatred for javaschipt. That's built its own little corner of hell. Computers are items of vast wasted potential covered in liberal amounts of poorly implemented shit. And the best we can do for the next 50 years is mine it and clear it gradually away as we uncover the occasional nugget of gold in festering piles of, well, you know what.
- nona 14y ago
  I mostly agree, except for the ability to install multiple versions of the same gem or package at the same time.

andyl 14y ago

nigelk - yes, it think using Package Repos exclusively would be a win for Puppet. Fewer install options to confuse new users, simpler support model for your developers. BTW I do use your repositories. For me, they have proven to be more reliable than the Gem install. One of the things I like about Vagrant's installer is that he packages an embedded ruby version and installs it at /opt/vagrant/embedded. Vagrant plugins are installed at /opt/vagrant/embedded/gems. (using 'vagrant gem') This is sweet, because the whole Vagrant environment is isolated from the rest of the system. By contrast, the Puppet installer depends on a system ruby. It puts ruby 1.8.7 on my path, which I don't want. Then I've got to take special effort not to use it or corrupt it. Yukk. So if I were King - Puppet would use Package Repos exclusively, and depend on its own isolated/embedded Ruby.

nigelk 14y ago
Thanks for the feedback andyl. We're thinking very much about the direction of embedding all dependencies, but we're also conscious of the needs of the Linux distros, who don't package software that way. There is a downside to having all your apps embed their dependencies. It becomes significantly more complicated to update libraries in response to vulnerabilities and bugs.
- andyl 14y ago
  I've never seen an apt package that embeds ruby like Vagrant does. But - it works! (my dev platform is Ubuntu 12.04) Perhaps you don't need to embed all dependencies - just Ruby. Good luck in thinking this thru!