On 01/25/2012 03:40 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 25.1.2012 00:52, Rex Dieter napsal(a):
Mo Morsi wrote:
On 01/24/2012 04:50 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
Hi,
since we finally got our Ruby 1.9.3 feature page [1] approved, we are
starting rebuild for Ruby 1.9.3. Everyone who owns a package that
depends
on Ruby or Rubygems should rebuild it in the special Koji target
"f17-ruby". This target will be merged into rawhide just before the
branching, which will occur on 2012-02-07. After this deadline, you
will
need to go through the standard Bodhi update process. The detailed
instructions on rebuilding the packages, including our suggested
changes
can be found in [2]. Feel free to contact me or Vit Ondruch
(vondruch at
redhat dot com) or write to ruby-sig mailing lists, if you run into
any
kind of problems.
I'm somewhat confused. Has the issue w/ sudo gem install been resolved?
Any citation or bug references for this problem you mention?
-- rex
Let me clear the situation. First of all, this is not issue of "sudo
gem install". That command works just fine. That is issue with
Bundler. Unfortunately, Bundler is one big hack above RubyGems based
on some assumptions which are not true. It can be seen on its code
where is a lot of custom logic for specific version o RubyGems and
Bundler has a lot more quirks with regard of its usage on package
driven systems. It can break for example with every upstream change of
RubyGems. Now what is the issue:
Ruby, speaking about upstream as well as 1.8 in Fedora, traditionally
broke the FHS. We tried to remove this breakage with Ruby 1.9.
RubyGems traditionally installs their binary extensions into the same
place as their platform independent code, incompatible with FHS. To be
somehow compatible with FHS, this was changed and for Ruby 1.8, the
binary extensions were installed into ruby_sitedir. That results in
conflicting binary RPMs which conflicts among their versions, although
this was never the case for RubyGems packages. So for Ruby 1.9.3 we
tried to work on this issue and we modified RubyGems to be able to
load the libraries, where the noarch part is placed in share and the
binary library in lib, so RPM packaged gems are installed into
/usr/share and their binary libraries into /usr/lib. Moreover, we
changed how RubyGems works, e.g. by default, "gem install" installs
gems into your home directory, so you don't need sudo to work with
gems anymore. However, if your are using "gem install" with root
users, they are installed into /usr/local/share and their binary
libraries are installed into /usr/local/lib.
Now there comes Bundler. Assuming it knows everything about RubyGems,
they put together their custom logic how to populate Ruby's load
paths, which does not work well with changes we made into RubyGems,
i.e. it cannot add the binary extension path to the Ruby's load path,
resulting in failure when loading the gem. Nevertheless, this is going
to be handled in RPM packaged Bundler and it will work properly as
long as user uses RPM packaged Bundler. Once somebody installs
upstream version of Bundler, the Bundler fails naturally.
So there are probably 4 solutions to this issue:
1) Always use Bundler provided by Fedora which will works as it should.
2) Force Ruby and RubyGems upstream to properly support FHS. I already
provided patches [1] but I need your support.
3) Revert the customized behavior of RubyGems and break FHS.
4) Treat root as regular user and install gem also into root's home
directory, but it obviously doesn't make sense.
So obviously I have chosen 1) and trying to move forward with 2). That
works most of the times. It breaks only in situation, when you install
upstream Bundler using "sudo gem install" and later you want to use
some system wide gem with binary extension. If you install gems using
"gem install" into your home dir (preferred, default way), it works
every time. Mixing of RPMs with other package managers has its limits
and this is one of them.
OK so the only thing that will not work after everything is said and
done is running 'sudo bundle install' if you've installed bunder via
'gem install bundler' and not 'yum install rubygem-bundler' correct?
If that is the case, I can live with this as running 'bundle install' as
sudo is discouraged upstream anyways. I've seen a few cases which this
is used as a hacky workaround, but I think the intention on bundler is
to vendorize dependencies locally and is not meant for system-wide
management.
My only concern is that upstream practices will change yet again in a
manner which our reworking of the load paths to conform to the FHS will
be incompatible. Try as we might, I don't believe the Fedora ruby
community has enough sway with the upstream ruby community to change
their practices (yet) so I'm willing to go forward with this new
direction provided that if it becomes incompatible w/ a widespread
upstream practice down the road, we evaluate the situation and possibly
make the necessary changes to play well w/ the Ruby community. At least
until the day we can reasonably influence the direction of the upstream
practices.
-Mo
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
