On 28 November 2010 03:32, Mike Bailey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Ben Hoskings <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't think there's a need, for those projects at least. >> > > There's definitely a benefit to packaging when you maintain a large number > of systems or want to provision cloud servers quickly. >
Absolutely, but that's not something that any of us are dealing with as far as I know (if "large" is dozens or more). Also it involves a lot of compromises. - rvm makes ruby builds so easy and consistent that packages aren't really >> required (and you get lots of other advantages over a systemwide install); >> > > How long does it take you to compile Ruby these days on a slice with 256 MB > ram? > Not long, only about 5 minutes I think; but depending on the situation this might be a concern. - nginx has to be rebuilt to change passenger or other module versions, so >> packaging it isn't practical. >> > > How is this a problem? > It makes things messy because nginx builds against the version of passenger that was installed via (the active) rubygems. If you're distributing a binary nginx package, you'd also have to ship the corresponding passenger build, which isn't really feasible because it expects to be `gem install`ed. I'm sure it's possible to fudge the gem install, etc, so it can be distributed as a self-contained package, and there are probably situations where that's a good idea. But in general, it's simply not worth it when you can automate the build so easily (passenger comes with a tool to do it pretty easily, it's a one-liner with babushka (and other tools), etc etc). IMO, nginx just wasn't designed to be put in a binary package :) Ben -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
