From: Alex Young <alex@...>
Date: 2007-02-08T19:32:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Linux OS

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Alex Young wrote:
>> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>>> Gregory Brown wrote:
>>>> I think for
>>>> doing something like setting up apache + ruby/rails, pretty much any
>>>> distro will do for experimentation, though the debian based ones will
>>>> annoy you if you try to install ruby via apt.
>>> That's a big negative in my book. :) How is Ruby installation 
>>> difficult on apt-based distros?
>>>
>> It's not the fact that it's apt which makes it difficult - it's the 
>> historical packaging policies of Debian Ruby which splits the core 
>> into separate packages for the interpreter, irb, rdoc, and so on, 
>> which is confusing.  If I remember correctly, there was talk a short 
>> while ago of providing a meta-package which would pull all of these 
>> together in a single 'apt-get install ruby-full' (or something) to 
>> minimise irritation.
>>
>> I tend to ignore that and use checkinstall, myself.
>>
> Isn't the RPM world the same, in terms of how the whole Ruby package set 
> is distributed? For example, if you install a Rails RPM it will pull in 
> only the packages it needs. 
I wouldn't know.  What would `yum install ruby` pull in?  Judging from 
this recipe:

http://oe.openendstudios.com/2007/1/19/fedora-core-5-and-ruby-on-rails-server-recipe

(first on Google, no idea of the accuracy), it looks like that's all you 
need for ruby itself, but there will be others watching who can better 
answer...

-- 
Alex