Re: how to make installing Ruby easier for amateurs

Tom Cloyd wrote:
> 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.
>

The next version of Ruby will/does come with RubyGems.
But how a Linux distro packages it all up is not something with the 
developers of Ruby have control over (or very little, at least). One 
alternative is for people to contribute packages for various systems, 
but then you would have the "official" version (via your package 
manager's sources) and the external version. Plus, somebody has to 
maintain all that.
Now, installing via your particular Linux distro's packaging system is 
just one way of installing Ruby. The Windows One-Click version, for 
example, comes with RubyGems and a lot of other things that the regular 
Ruby package does not. On the other hand, if you install straight from 
source you never have to work about installing ruby-devel packages, but 
then that comes with its own challenges.

-Justin