On 28/05/08 at 08:39 -0000, Neil Wilson wrote: > 2008/5/27 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I'm not sure you understand the rationale for splitting ruby1.9. > > So that other packages don't pull in stuff they don't need and reduce > the perennial dependency problem. However those packages are a > minority application. The majority want ruby1.x to include gems, to > provide an executable called 'ruby', and supply all the subsiduary > tools and they will be (and indeed are) confused if that isn't the > case.
Please refrain from using "a minority" or "the majority" if you can't point to real data about that. But there's some real data: popcon. 264545 Ubuntu users have libruby1.8 installed (ie about >50% of all ubuntu users, since the most installed packages have 574294). And 9007 users (1.5% of all Ubuntu users, 3.4% of users having libruby1.8 installed) have libgems-ruby1.8 installed. So the data is pretty clear: most users of ruby in Ubuntu are interested in running ruby apps, not in developing ruby apps. (compare with rdoc1.8: 16493 insts) And the package would still be listed if the user only installed rubygems to do a 'gem update --system', so there's no bias introduced by that. > > It already exists, it's called ruby-full: > > Package: ruby-full > > [..] > > Depends: irb, libdbm-ruby, libgdbm-ruby, libopenssl-ruby, libreadline-ruby, > > rdoc, ri, ruby, ruby1.8-dev > > Recommends: libtcltk-ruby, ruby-elisp > > > > But currently, it pulls ruby1.8, since that's the default version, not > > ruby1.9. > > Yes, but that's the problem - one of marketing. Names matter. People > expect ruby1.x to provide what they need to use ruby. They don't > expect it to be just core ruby. If packagers need smaller packages > then they should be the one handling the 'what is the package called' > problem, not the poor end user who just wants to develop in ruby. > > For me ruby1.x should be user facing, pull in everything required to > develop in ruby (including gems which is notably missing from your > list above). We should have ruby1.x-core for those packagers who need > the lighter less fattening alternative (with ruby1.x-core handling the > 'alternatives' system properly and providing the 'ruby' symlink). That's your opinion. > The 'ruby' package needs to be a virtual that pulls the 'current' > version, but is satisfied by all the other options (which will include > jruby and rubinus before too long). That's hard to do, unfortunately, because of compiled extensions. (you can't just install jruby and expect every ruby app to work) > So it is really just a package renaming issue, which is a bit of a > pain in the backside, but it will improve the standing of > Debian/Ubuntu ruby in the community enormously if it is done. And it > sets us up to handle the various interpreter combinations going > forward. Such a renaming is not an option for lenny. We can discuss it again for lenny+1. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- gem1.9 - require 'rdoc/template' fails - missing dependency https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/228345 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs