} Hello.
}
} mathew:
}
} > Yes, well, let's not reopen the RubyGems vs APT discussion again...
} > That's one area where the Debian folk deserve criticism, but they
} > don't seem to have any interest in cooperating to fix the problem.
}
} Don't you think that following 'let's not reopen' with 'Debian folk
} deserve criticism' and 'don't seem to have any interest in cooperating'
} seems a bit contradictory?
}
} Al Gordon:
}
} > Is there an easy way for Debian users to create .debs for stuff
} > otherwise installed via gems or with setup.rb? I regularly create
} > .debs for "./configure; make; make install" by using checkinstall,
} > but am unaware of the ruby equivalent, if any.
}
} Don't `checkinstall gem install ...`
} and `checkinstall ruby setup.rb` work?
}
} (Not tried these, just wondering.)
I haven't tried either of these, but I've been happy with a /usr/local
install of gem on Debian. It took some work to figure out how to get it to
work right, but I documented it at http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1198&group_id=126&atid=575
so other people can deal with it themselves. To deal with the GEM_HOME
environment variable issue I added the following line to /etc/csh.cshrc:
setenv GEM_HOME "/usr/local/lib/site_ruby/gems"
...and the following line to /etc/profile:
export GEM_HOME="/usr/local/lib/site_ruby/gems"
I also symlinked /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/gems/bin to /usr/local/bin for
convenience.
While it would be nice if Debian magically played nice with RubyGems, I'm
more annoyed that it took a moderately complicated workaround to get gem to
install in /usr/local properly, like any well-behaved piece of OSS would.
} Cheers,
} -- Shot (who believes that Debian folks are right in trying to follow FHS)
--Greg
···
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:39:46AM +0900, Shot - Piotr Szotkowski wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:44:41AM +0900, Shot - Piotr Szotkowski wrote:
> Hello.
>
> mathew:
>
> > ruby
> > ri1.8
> > rdoc1.8
>
> Or, better yet, ri and rdoc (dummy packages depending on the latest ri
> and RDoc versions, just like the ruby one depends on the latest Ruby)
> - this way you'll get automagically upgraded to 2.0 if/when the next
> Debian stable ships it.
The point of Stable is that it doesn't change, so that you'll never have
to worry about something that works suddenly breaking when you're doing
security updates or adding software. Thus, one tends to not see new
packages appear in Stable unless absolutely necessary for security
reasons.
Anyway, whether you don't want to upgrade to the next stable release when it
appears, or whether you do want to, selecting the dummy, generic-named
packages is better.
Or, better yet, ri and rdoc (dummy packages depending on the latest ri
and RDoc versions, just like the ruby one depends on the latest Ruby)
- this way you'll get automagically upgraded to 2.0 if/when the next
Debian stable ships it.
The point of Stable is that it doesn't change, so that you'll never
have to worry about something that works suddenly breaking when you're
doing security updates or adding software. Thus, one tends to not see
new packages appear in Stable unless absolutely necessary for security
reasons.
That's why I explicitly mentioned I'm writing about upgrading to the
next stable. I prefer to automagically see there's a new stable Ruby
version and be able to easily choose whether to upgrade (with the
dependencies changed to ruby2.0) or keep the dummy ruby package at
the current version (thus keeping ruby1.8).
Also, in this particular case, the suggestion was already to install the
dummy ruby package; IMHO it only makes sense to do the same for the ri
and rdoc packages (what would be the benefit of upgrading to Ruby 2.0
but keeping the older ri and RDoc?).
Also, Debian releases stable versions fairly rarely, but Ubuntu releases
every six months (and I generally upgrade accordingly); it's really nice
not to have to track such changes in all of the non-default packages,
and use the dummy ones to do the work. :o)
Cheers,
-- Shot
···
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:44:41AM +0900, Shot - Piotr Szotkowski wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to get pedantic. Yes, you're right.
···
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 02:45:28PM +0900, angus wrote:
[Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com>, 2005-12-24 02.23 CET]
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:44:41AM +0900, Shot - Piotr Szotkowski wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > mathew:
> >
> > > ruby
> > > ri1.8
> > > rdoc1.8
> >
> > Or, better yet, ri and rdoc (dummy packages depending on the latest ri
> > and RDoc versions, just like the ruby one depends on the latest Ruby)
> > - this way you'll get automagically upgraded to 2.0 if/when the next
> > Debian stable ships it.
>
> The point of Stable is that it doesn't change, so that you'll never have
> to worry about something that works suddenly breaking when you're doing
> security updates or adding software. Thus, one tends to not see new
> packages appear in Stable unless absolutely necessary for security
> reasons.
Anyway, whether you don't want to upgrade to the next stable release when it
appears, or whether you do want to, selecting the dummy, generic-named
packages is better.