[Rubygems-developers] Re: [ANN] dev-utils v1.0

Aredridel aredridel at gmail.com
Fri Oct 8 16:09:09 EDT 2004


> > Totally looking forward to the tarball and RPA releases. .. I still
> > can't get RubyGems to work.
> >
>
> What issue are you having?  I saw that you were joining the rubygems
> developers list.  Can you post your problem there?  I apologize if
> it's been mentioned and overlooked.  It's been a hectic several weeks
> leading up to RubyConf.

Yeah, I bet! Conferences are always fun like that... better once there ;-)

I'll admit right now to being an "alternate packager" (I maintain RPMs
of most of the Ruby stuff in the PLD Linux Distro) -- My biggest
concern is making some libraries work right. The one I've been working
on hardest is Rails. Even the tarball version requires rubygems -- not
the gem command, but the library.

I'm torn between rewriting to not need the RubyGems library (clean
solution dependency-wise, but ugly in that I maintain an alternate
version), and packaging RubyGems -- but that's hard, too, since
install.rb won't install into an alternate root (RPM traditionally
uses /tmp/packagename/usr/lib/ruby/1.8 for libraries, which RPM then
relocates into the proper place when installed)

The reason this is important is that we're trying to make a pure
system here -- for Perl, we have a cpan2rpm script, which makes RPM
spec files that we can then hand-tweak to work exactly right for
smooth install and uninstall. It calculates dependencies automatically
and all kinds of stuff.

For Ruby, I'm still doing it by hand -- though I've talked about
pulling from RPA when RPA uses pristine sources (which is in the
plan). The problem of the moment is Rails. It's really hard to get
installed without Gems, and Gems itself is posing trouble.

The gem command would be nice to offer PLD users as an option, since
what users want to do with their own systems is up to them, but that's
secondary in my mind to packaging the libraries well with the native
tools.

The other problem I have is just one of consistency. If a few
libraries are gems in PLD, and the rest are not (since setup.rb does
so nicely from tarball, making RPMs is really simple and I see no
reason to add a gem dependency...), the -rubygems becomes a little
scary. My mind says that running a ruby script shouldn't take any more
than "ruby file.rb", and having to set RUBYOPTS is kinda kludgy, too,
though PLD could handle it if it really had to.

Basically, I'm looking for the cleanest ways to make RPMs. At the
moment, Rails is the first thing I've come across with a hard
dependency on gems. I can see gem versions needing gems, but there's
usually a tarball too. The problem comes when even the tarball needs
the gems library....

Ari


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list