From: Tanner Burson Date: 2006-05-24T06:43:38+09:00 Subject: Re: Proposing: A new Ruby Windows installer ------=_Part_37418_23277276.1148420613192 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 5/23/06, Enterprise Astronaut wrote: > > Curt Hibbs wrote: > > installer team. I have been asking for help repeatedly over the years > > without much response. So far, only Ryan Leavengood and Shashank Date > > have > > helped. > > Well, maybe this is the real problem with the Ruby community then? > Asking for assistance over a number of years to get help on an installer > package that I'm sure thousands of people, companies, etc. use daily and > coming back with mostly deaf echos is not ideal. This installer is a > fundamental piece of Ruby being accepted by a larger audience (sorry but > Windows is still the dominant platform out there). I know a lot of > developers/companies that unless they get a timely pretty installer > package they won't bother using it or allow it on a server. (I hear the > argument already "well we don't want those types of developers > anyway"... Don't we? Do we want critical mass or be a niche language?) > > The point of my post was to eliminate the manual work that has to go > into a Ruby installer. Make it a lot more automated, flick a switch and > walk away. Even under ideal situations the Ruby Windows Installer is at > least a few days/weeks turn around time. Right now the 1.84 release is > going on 6 months. This is the reality right now. The release of a > Ruby installer should not be based on someone's agenda, it should be an > automated process. I appreciate what the team does and the endless work > they put into it but at some point the Ruby community will need to > mature in this regard. > > From a company's perspective I have a lot better chance of having this > installed on a server based simply off of the organized, tidy webpage: > http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.4.3/ > All the releases synced up, all the builds ready for download from one > location. Nice and easy. When I look at the Ruby download site I see a > mis-mash of info and links leading off to other sites- it looks > unprofessional at best. Again, I'm looking at this from a company's > eyes. First impressions mean a lot. Actually the ruby core team releases a minimal install of Ruby almost in sync with the normal releases. The problem is that it doesn't include all of the extensions, and win32 specfic things that people EXPECT from the installer. The problem is NOT with building ruby itself, but all of the expected extensions. These take time to be brought up to the new version, compiled, and tested, there isn't much you can do to automate this process any more than it currently is. But if you have good ideas, you should definitely be posing these questions to the one-click-installer mailing list, and developers. Also you seem to be a bit confused. The One-Click-Installer is a community provided package, NOT something provided by the core ruby team. The core ruby team DOES provide a minimal install (or at least used to). This is different than the python package you mentioned above. And most importantly of all, and it's been stated many times this week alone, ideas are interesting, discussion is helpful, but code is what gets things done. If you see a need, and think you can fill it, then by all means provide the code. But suggesting, or telling others to solve problem= s only serves to annoy those that are currently working on those problems. -The Enterprise Astronaut > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > --=20 =3D=3D=3DTanner Burson=3D=3D=3D tanner.burson@gmail.com http://tannerburson.com <---Might even work one day... ------=_Part_37418_23277276.1148420613192--