From: James Edward Gray II <james@...>
Date: 2010-03-18T23:31:51+09:00
Subject: Re: Recommended way to install Rubygems

On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Nick Brown wrote:

> But just yesterday I was trying to install mechanize (via rubygems) on 
> my 9.10 system, and it kept failing because 'net/https' was missing. And 
> I was scratching my head wonder why the heck a core piece of ruby like 
> that wouldn't be there...

I completely agree that the split sucks.  We run a Ruby service that requires our users to install a simple script on their servers.  It does use net/https to communicate, so about 80% of our support issues on Debian systems are us explaining to users how to finish their Ruby install.

In my opinion, the problem is that the Debian maintainers have changed what it means to install Ruby.  That's not OK to me, because it's not their call to make.  The Ruby core team gets to decide what it means to install Ruby.  All of the standard libraries are meant to be installed so you can count on having them.  By changing that decision, Debian has made it so you can't count on having them and that changes the rules of what you can do with Ruby.

> The easiest way to solve this problem would be to rename "ruby" to 
> "ruby-core" or something, then rename "ruby-full" to "ruby". This would 
> allow the few who want partial ruby installs to still do so, but the 
> great masses of users (and hosting providers!) who expect the package 
> called "ruby" to be all of ruby will be spared confusion and 
> frustration.

I completely agree.  It's fine for Debian to offer lighter installs, but installing Ruby should mean I get Ruby as it was meant to be.  That has to be the default to be correct, in my opinion.

James Edward Gray II