Re: how to make installing Ruby easier for amateurs

Jg W Mittag wrote:
> Marc Heiler wrote:
>   
>>> Forget apt-get for Ruby.  Maybe one day that will work as most people
>>> expect it should.  But today is not that day.
>>>       
>> I do not think it ever will. How many years have gone by now since the 
>> first user had the problem with this concerning ruby on debian at least? 
>> 3 years?
>>
>> Debian Users will continue to have split-up packages, and as a result 
>> continue to have all these problems which reoccur every some months on 
>> the list here, or on a forum somewhere else. This is a fundamental flaw 
>> in philosophy concerning packaging on Linux boxes altogether in fact.
>>     
>
> Can you explain how this is a fundamental flaw in Linux packaging?
> TeX, Emacs, Perl, PHP, Python, Java, they all share most if not all of
> Ruby's challenges: all have their own directory layouts, their own
> search paths, their own library paths, their own versioning schemes,
> their own package managers, their own distribution formats, multiple
> different implementations, multiple different versions. Most have
> native C extensions. Most were not created with Linux package managers
> in mind -- heck, most were created before Linux package managers even
> existed.
>
> And yet, all of them work perfectly fine. All except Ruby.
>
> This reminds me of the guy on the freeway listening to the traffic
> channel and thinking to himself: "What are they talking about, a car
> driving the wrong way on the freeway? It's not *a* car, it's hundreds
> of them!"
>
> jwm
>
>
>   
Interesting comment. I have to say that I don't see it as a flaw in 
Linux packaging either. I began this thread by objecting to "secret 
knowledge" - the knowledge that Rubygems, once you install it, cannot 
function with something else which it never names and which I've never 
heard of. There's always secret knowledge, of course, BUT, dammit, if 
program X cannot do its thing without dependency Z, then I expect X to 
take care of itself. I don't expect to have to do it myself. As an 
ignorant amateur, that asking too much of me.

I see LOTS of things in Ruby taking care of themselves. But...when I go 
to install Ruby, it comes WITHOUT RubyGems. Does that actually make 
sense to anyone at all? If RubyGems is optional, why is it more optional 
than all those exotic libraries that automatically come with Ruby. I'm 
FAR more likely to need RubyGems, as a learner, than some library that 
parses HTML header files or whatever (just making this UP!), or messes 
with obscure aspects of networks. Priorities seem misplaced here.

The other side of it is this: if Ruby isn't going to come alive with 
Rubygems (and, of course, all that IT needs to function), then it looks 
like Rubygems needs to look out for itself. Otherwise, *I* have to it, 
and I haven't a clue (well, I sure do now, of course - but why did I 
have to run off the cliff 6 times to get this sorted out?). I protest 
about this because I deeply love and respect Ruby. I want to push others 
to try it. I don't want them to have some of these crazy problems I've 
had. It doesn't seem necessary.

So, I'm back where I started. This particular problem just needs to be 
fixed. I can't do it - I don't know enough. I'm in favor of making 
things work. How about you?

t.

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: [phone]
<< [e-mail] >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website) 
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~