Re: Austin Ziegler's behaviour (Was: clarification of ruby libraries installation paths?)

On 10/29/07, Lucas Nussbaum <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 29/10/07 at 12:54 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > Although I like Ubuntu, I will *never* install a package-based Ruby on
> > a Debian system because the packages for 1.6 and 1.8 were so badly
> > mangled that you had to install ten *different* packages that
> > didn't always state their dependencies clearly...
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Please provide an example (or better, a bug number) of what you mean by
> "didn't always state their dependencies clearly". It's true that some
> libs part of stdlib are not in the "libruby1.8" package, for good
> reasons. But their dependencies are clearly stated, AFAIK.

I don't submit Debian bugs because I don't use Debian. I have,
however, had to work with users who did use Debian and being a *good*
software developer, I looked into their problems. I was royally pissed
off at the results of what I found.

> > and then you'd have to redo some of them
> > because Debian (in its infinite zealotry) doesn't think that
> > OpenSSL is Free Enough
> Not true. If the ruby openssl lib is not installed by default when you
> install libruby1.8 (the stdlib package), it's because it would pull some
> other dependencies that are not needed if you don't use the openssl
> lib. So packages using the openssl lib will depend on it explicitely (or
> recommend it). See feed2imap, for which I'm the upstream dev, for an
> example.

Sorry, but libruby1.8 should include openssl as a dependency, because
libruby-openssl (or whatever the hell it's called) is part of Ruby's
stdlib.

> > and therefore doesn't install it by default and you can't do that
> > thing you could do out of the box on windows.
> True, there are some differences between Windows and Linux, and with the
> way you install apps on those two platforms. Some people prefer one
> platform, some people prefer the other. Both for good reasons, usually.

My point is that Debian delivers a broken Ruby. No more, no less.

> > Or something like that.
> "something like that"? So you are clearly talking about things you don't
> understand, spreading FUD, as usual.

I last dealt directly with Debian almost three years ago. If I can't
remember the specifics, it's because I've been productive doing other
things and not having to fix other peoples' problems with a broken
Ruby distribution.

> How would you react if I said:
> - the PDF::Writer author, in its infinite zealotry, decided to
>   do X in a non-standard compliant way, so you would have to redo X
>   manually for each PDF you generate.

If it was true -- as my comments about Debian's Ruby have been -- I
wouldn't have a problem. Debian does not deliver a Ruby that's even
remotely complete compared to a source-built Ruby.

> - the PDF::Writer author is so insanely stupid that you'd better
>   generate PDF by hand instead of using it.
> (none of the above being true -- I've never used PDF::Writer)

If you want Unicode, that'd be true.

> Your answers on this thread are full of hate and anger. I'm sorry if you
> had a bad experience with Debian, Ubuntu, or something else in the past.
> I'm involved in Debian development, trying to improve things, but being
> received with so aggressive mails here make me reconsider a lot of
> things.

Well, I'm sorry for you. I have found nothing but obstructionism in
the Debian community.

> Your behaviour clearly doesn't fit in the free software community. And I
> can't remember the last time I faced someone so annoying in the free
> software community.

Then you've been sheltered. I'm not actually hateful. I'm just not
willing to let people request special behaviours because they're
unwilling to change. Don't you even *recognise* that you're asking
that Ruby bend to *your* distribution's nonsensical decisions? Isn't
there the least bit of irony in what you've just asked?

> You don't care about how distros (or Apple) package ruby. I respect your
> POV.  But I think that you made your opinion clear several times now,
> and that you should just refrain from replying to my mails, or to
> threads about distros, in the future.

Then just make a decision. And stop breaking Ruby.

> Several people encouraged my efforts (on-list and off-list) aiming at a
> better/more standardized ruby layout on distros, so there's clearly some
> interest in that, but your pollution of all threads on the subject with
> flames doesn't really allow productive discussions.

I haven't produce a single flame in this, Lucas. I just don't think
that what you're asking for is worthwhile because it's trying to work
around a decision that's, frankly, Not Ruby's Problem. I also advocate
this position very strongly and don't just stand back like a
wallflower. (You'll note that when Laurent posted his notes on about
Apple's changes, I suggested that he talk to you guys and see what had
been discussed on ruby-core -- so that a single solution based on
Apple's decisions could be considered. There's a difference: Laurent
and Apple provided a change that worked for them complete with diffs.
It may be possible to work it into a standard solution that makes even
the most difficult of distributions happy. But over the three years
that I've seen this argued, I have *yet* to see a single diff provided
by a Debian person on this.)

> Note that in those threads, I never asked anyone to "fix Debian's
> problem". As your said, what packagers choose to do is their
> responsibility. I'm seeking advices, trying to communicate with the
> upstream project to find good solutions. Usually, this is considered a
> Good Thing (at least by the other upstream devs I talk to). But your
> attitude is totally discouraging.

(1) I'm not making a final decision. That belongs to Matz. If he
decides that he wants to provide a way for you (the Linux
distributions) to paint yourself out of the corner that you (the Linux
distributions) have painted yourself into, then all is well and good.
But,

(2) I'm advocating the opposite position: there's no problem to fix
here that Ruby needs to care about. This is a Linux distribution
problem that needs to be fixed based on the philosophies of each Linux
distribution. Note as well that:

(3) RubyGems and/or setup.rb is the advocated way of distributing
packages for Ruby. The former allows for things that most distro
solutions don't allow (and that's a good thing) and the latter
installs into site_ruby. None of which should be controversial. Also
note *very carefully* that I have said that I think that RubyGems does
certain things wrong when it comes to binary extensions. I don't have
a solution for it, because it doesn't affect me right now -- but I
think that it *is* wrong.

I welcome your contributions. I think your request is worthless. Is that better?

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * [e-mail] * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * [e-mail] * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * [e-mail]