Does anyone know of a repository that's *trustworthy* (gotta worry 'bout
malware) with newer ruby rpm's than RHEL has?
OT: the more I deal with ruby, the less I like it. Someone here was ready
to move to a newer version, and from the ruby.org website, they're
apparently actively hostile to all RH-related distros, even though we're
the most common in North America. They've got a how to do it from debian
and arch, how to use their own installer, and, oh, yes, they say a lot of
their community feels you should build from source.
Sorry, that's not my idea of a stable language that I'd ever recommend
to
someone....
mark
On 02/04/2013 03:21 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:> Does anyone know of a repository that's *trustworthy* (gotta worry 'bout > malware) with newer ruby rpm's than RHEL has? > > OT: the more I deal with ruby, the less I like it. Someone here was ready > to move to a newer version, and from the ruby.org website, they're > apparently actively hostile to all RH-related distros, even though we're > the most common in North America. They've got a how to do it from debian > and arch, how to use their own installer, and, oh, yes, they say a lot of > their community feels you should build from source. > > Sorry, that's not my idea of a stable language that I'd ever recommend to > someone....I've used the Ruby Version Manager <https://rvm.io/> for all things Ruby for a few years now & can highly recommend it. Stable, under constant development, very active community & Michal Papis, who monitors & co-authors the project, is very quick to reply to any problems/questions. Several different ways to install & run Ruby are on offer & it's works very well on CentOS. Hope this helps, Cheers, Phil... -- currently (ab)using CentOS 5.8 & 6.3, Debian Squeeze & Wheezy, Fedora Beefy & Spherical, Lubuntu 12.10, OS X Snow Leopard & Ubuntu Precise & Quantal GnuPG Key : http://www.horse-latitudes.co.uk/publickey.asc
On 2/4/2013 7:21 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:> Does anyone know of a repository that's*trustworthy* (gotta worry 'bout > malware) with newer ruby rpm's than RHEL has? > > OT: the more I deal with ruby, the less I like it. Someone here was ready > to move to a newer version, and from the ruby.org website, they're > apparently actively hostile to all RH-related distros, even though we're > the most common in North America. They've got a how to do it from debian > and arch, how to use their own installer, and, oh, yes, they say a lot of > their community feels you should build from source. > > Sorry, that's not my idea of a stable language that I'd ever recommend to > someone....IMNSHO, Ruby is only suitable for prototyping and low volume uses. it doesn't scale well, and ruby/rails websites perform abysmally under heavy workloads. that said, the 'correct' way of dealing with something like this in the RHEL world is to build whatever version you need for your purposes, test it, and package it as your OWN rpm's for production deployment. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast
On Mon, February 4, 2013 10:21, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:> Does anyone know of a repository that's *trustworthy* (gotta worry > 'bout malware) with newer ruby rpm's than RHEL has?I have not found one yet.> > OT: the more I deal with ruby, the less I like it. Someone here was > ready to move to a newer version, and from the ruby.org website, > they're apparently actively hostile to all RH-related distros, > even though we're the most common in North America. They've got > a how to do it from debian and arch, how to use their own installer, > and, oh, yes, they say a lot of their community feels you should > build from source.As the man says, Ruby is open source. If you have an itch then scratch it yourself. I had much the same issue with Ruby albeit on three platforms simultaneously, MS-Win, Apple-OSX and RHEL-Linux. In the end I went with Ruby Version Manager to save my sanity. However, RVM is a very intrusive bit of environment scripting and so I later switched to RBENV. That is a little lighter but I was still not satisfied with the amount of background work required to get Rails deployments to work with RVM/RBENV on different hosts. For development either RVM or RBENV is almost certainly the way to go for non-sysadmins. For deployments I am not so sure. I ended up building my own rpm packages using rpmdev and mock. After avoiding the issue for years I discovered that rolling your own rpms for Ruby is pretty simple, once you get a working spec file (which I eventually discovered and stole). If you care to go down that road I have provided a write up (spec file included) online at: http://byrnejb.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/building-ruby-1-9-3-for-centos-6-3/> > Sorry, that's not my idea of a stable language that I'd ever recommend > to someone.... > > markYeah, well I can recall spending weeks on the phone with HP's tech response centre in Raleigh trying to get Cobol II to work as documented. Nobody asked me for my recommendation either. As for providing the packages, I am willing to send them to whoever wishes to host them. Even to CentOS extras if anyone would be kind enough to guide me through the administrative procedure to do so. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3
On Mon, February 4, 2013 19:01, Les Mikesell wrote:> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Craig White <craig.white at ttiltd.com> > wrote: >> >> >> And lastly, Ruby is an ecosystem far beyond the base language. It >> has a 'gem' package management system which again is cross platform >> and even when you try to package ruby in rpm's, there's no way an RH >> or EPEL will keep up with updates. >> > > I guess I still don't understand why you think that is a good thing. > If the developers didn't get it right the first dozen times, why do > you think the next update will be better? That is, if EPEL can't keep > up, why would anyone want to? If you don't have the QA that a > packager does it means you have to do it yourself. >It is a good thing in the sense that the cost of entry for developers who provide Ruby extensions is very, very, low as all platforms Ruby runs on are essentially supported out of the box by RubyGems. If one becomes expert at RPM package building on RHEL/CentOS then how exactly does that expertise translate from RHEL into say Debian; or BSD; or OSX; or MS-Windows? It does not. On the other hand, any non-native language extension released as a RubyGem and pushed to rubygems.org is instantly available on every platform running a comparable version of Ruby. Further, with rubygems one has version control at the extension level with support for concurrent versions built in. Compare that with rpm where one has exactly one choice of a given package for the entire host. The problem with system packagers like rpm from a Ruby developers standpoint is that frequently developers are packaging language components that are extracted from a larger application and not the application itself. This is essentially how Ruby on Rails came to be released. In such cases a system level application package management system is simultaneously too large and too small for Ruby gems. It is too big in that it requires too much overhead to get it to work at all. It is too small because it only handles one Linus distribution and does nothing at all for any non-linux OS. One must think in terms of plugins when considering RubyGems. Firefox 10 ESR is packaged for CentOS as an rpm but most of the addons that make FF valuable to me are plugins obtained directly by FF from the Mozilla repository or from trusted third parties. These addons are not provided as rpms from RH and never will be. RubyGems serve much the same purpose as FF addons and they are implemented in a similar fashion; an extension belongs to the application and not to the system. As for not getting 'it' right, whatever 'it' is, Ruby is not a single implementation. The baseline is the MRI but there exists several alternative implementations including one written in Java. Each of these serves a different user audience while providing a common syntax. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3
On 02/04/2013 03:21 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:> Does anyone know of a repository that's *trustworthy* (gotta worry 'bout > malware) with newer ruby rpm's than RHEL has?This thread is so full of fail and FUD. Long story short, http://people.redhat.com/bkabrda/ruby193-rhel-6/ a longer story, go readup about collections an even longer story : I have been working on a ruby193 stack that replaces the system ruby, and another one that goes into /opt/; time and other issues prevent that project from getting 'there'. All forms of help appreciated. Regards, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc