On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Lucas Nussbaum
<lucas / lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:
> On 10/09/10 at 02:41 +0900, Aaron Patterson wrote:
>> I think this kind of problem already happens today with Debian. =A0IIRC,
>> doing a normal install of Ruby on debian doesn't provide openssl, you
>> have to specifically ask for it.
> This was true in the past, but is no longer the case.
>
> Please avoid spreading FUD about Ruby and Debian. It just makes our work
> less fun than it should be.

Lucas:

I just dealt with a rather painful problem on Ubuntu 10.04 because of
the changes that Debian made to RubyGems, a need to upgrade to
RubyGems 1.3.7 (there are gems that will not install unless you're on
at least that version of RubyGems), and my own belief that the
Debian/Ubuntu situation wasn't as bad as it used to be (given that I
can do "gem update --system" on Mac OS without breaking anything, and
what others have said). A small dose of my own idiocy in pushing
forward despite how things looked didn't help.

Things were badly broken enough that I had to go through a whole
series of "dpkg --remove --force-dependencies" and equivalent --purge
calls just to be able to reliably reinstall enough Ruby to use rvm for
the future to avoid this.

When I did "apt-get install ruby1.8", I didn't get rdoc1.8,
rubygems1.8, ri1.8, or libopenssl-ruby1.8, all of which I consider
standard parts of the Ruby ecosystem.

Things are much better than they were three or four years ago, but the
unfortunate reality is that what Aaron said isn't FUD; I just
experienced it in the last 36 hours.

Aside from what I consider to be the unforgivable breakage to
rubygems, the Debian maintainers are doing a much better job of
handling Ruby than has been done in the past and than has been done in
other situations. However, I still don't think that it's quite enough
(in part because of the unforgivable breakage to rubygems).

-a
--=20
Austin Ziegler =95 halostatue / gmail.com =95 austin / halostatue.ca
http://www.halostatue.ca/ =95 http://twitter.com/halostatue