From: "W. Kent Starr" <elderburn@...>
Date: 2001-12-29T08:31:53+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:29601] Re: Python and Ruby: a comparison

Henning von Rosen wrote:
> 
> > Or...when you are creating sites on public hosts you don't own or
> > control. In that case it is almost exclusively a Perl (and if you're
> > lucky, php) world.
> 
> yeah, we tried to convince our webhotel to install ruby, but then the RPM's
> didn't work and so on... there sure are some advantages in using massively
> popular or overly hyped langs
> 
> /h
> 
> > The more "demand' for Ruby, the more likely this will change.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Kent Starr
> > elderburn@mindspring.com

I wasn't even aware there ~were~ rpm's for Ruby! LOL

Frankly, though, rpm is not IMO the best way of installing what is
intended to be production software. I use it where packages are
available) as a quick and dirty checkout of something of marginal or
medium interest. Otherwise, ./configure - make - make install IMO gives
superior long term results and i would think that a sys admin on a
server would prefer that route anyway.

Also, with rpm it is best to ~always~ check for dependencies; generally
when the install fails it is because of need for a newer version of a
given library, or it is missing entirely. Installing the correct version
of the lib generally solves the problem in my experience. 

And, although this should be obvious, I have solved or avoided a lot of
install problems simply by reading the README and/or INSTALL files! :-)

Try and see if you can't get them to reconsider the ./conf etc. route;
maybe offer to hold their hands throughout the process. Ruby is
definitely worth it.

Regards,

Kent Starr
elderburn@mindspring.com