Marc Heiler wrote:
>> I don't know much about this, but why don't these installs establish and
>> reference symlinks.
>>     
>
> Because UNIX tradition means that often things grow chaotically up to 
> the point where it needs to be fixed. But if it does not need to be 
> fixed yet, it will continue that way.
>
> That is the power of UNIX design - grow and grow and grow.
> Never think before you grow. Thinking delays growing.
>
> Bad design can be fixed later - is a mantra. That not many fix it later,
> because it would be a lot of work, is another issue ...
>
>   
>> ruby gets installed and established a symlink
>> which anything can access to find it, and likewise with rubygems. 
>>     
>
> But you are only applying a cosmetic surface to the underlying problem 
> :)
> The distribution will probably demand of you to "keep" to its way.
>
> I remember the debian "philosophy" applied to ruby and splitting the
> packages in many individual yet arbitrary components which means it is
> in a way sometimes crippled. I remember an old plea from python devs
> to stop doing this, as users who install python via package manager
> (and more importantly the devs who code something) cannot rely that
> all the "required" things in python are actually there. I.e. if one
> went and compiled python from source he would have less trouble.
>
>   
>> This mess is the result of someone who should know better not 
>> thinking things through. 
>>     
>
> Typical UNIX evolution. Things like Udev or Fontconfig XML files was the 
> result (not to forget the many different config file formats)
>
>   
>> For compiled ruby to go one place and package manager ruby another??? 
>>     
>
> This is the old design principle in Unix - if you can make it 
> complicated, why make it simple? Your package manager by default will 
> probably dominate the /usr hierarchy whereas your self compiled programs 
> should be default populate /usr/local (unless you have given --prefix). 
> Some distributions think that is not enough and populate /opt for 
> reasons unknown to mankind, and almost no distribution is applying 
> AppDirs/PackageDirs (what belongs to a program, belongs to the same 
> directory).
>
> But wait a second! If you already decided to go on your own, i.e. 
> compile ruby from source, why not compile it into a specific directory? 
> I compile into /Programs/Ruby/Version and symlinks will then be used. 
> There may be nicer approaches, the best one would be to work without any 
> symlinks - but it worked for me since a long time and I like it. It is 
> simple and easy and I dont have the time nore knowledge to try something 
> more "beautifully" for now.
>
> The unix way is a big mess and will never be fixed due to legacy 
> reasons. After all these years applications which you compile from 
> source will behave differently - i.e. not everyone uses GNU 
> autoconfigure, not everyone honours --prefix or some other important 
> directives etc...
>
>   
>> The guy behind this surely has a career in investment banking 
>> waiting for him somewhere.
>>     
>
> The power of UNIX, as long as it works, it's fine. And the more 
> important
> a piece of software is, the more annoying these guys are ;)
> But it was more historic growth. Unix is a patchwork, it was never 
> designed with a grand vision in place. And Linus, as smart as he may be 
> and as brilliant the work he can pull off with the kernel and git, is 
> restricted to exactly this - the rest does not interest him that much.
>
> And modular xorg was modern about 50 years ago...
>
>   
>> I compiled my ruby from source because I was having some problems with
>> the package manager version.
>>     
>
> Doesn't it start all so often exactly like that :)
>
>   
>> But then rubygems wouldn't install. Kept insisting that 
>> some libraries which WERE there were not. An expert I 
>> had look at the mess couldn't make sense of it. 
>> I then installed rubygems from the package manager. 
>> No problems. Except ruby cannot find the gems.
>>     
>
> Well, all I know is that i think the whole rubygems situation should be 
> rethought. I compile rubygems from source but it all seems to bring up 
> stupid and wrong dependencies. Requires "rubyforge", "hoe" and loads of 
> others. Rake refuses to compile it. If i copy setup.rb though and go via 
> the setup.rb route, THE INSTALLATION WORKS NICELY.
>
> Myself, I dont need rubygems because I keep track of all the packages on 
> my own (as said, it is a lot of work in total, but when a version 
> changes, all I have to do is change a single line in my "database" and I 
> can compile it.)
>
> I wish you the best luck to solve your problem!
> Maybe it is better to stick to your package manager. I never managed and 
> I have entirely given up about it, but I often regret that I invest time 
> into something others get for "free" (provided that they learned about 
> it in the first place. I found package managers so insanely boring that 
> I am too lazy to learn and read boring man pages until I am "expert")
>   
Marc -

Wow! Thanks for validation, as we say in my trade.

I'm VERY committed to Kubuntu Linux, after converting from WinXP earlier 
this year. So many things to like. BUT I still vividly recall the first 
time installed a program and watched it disappear with a trace. Not in 
the launch menu. Not on the desktop. It took me hours to find out that 
sometimes they get put...uh...now where was it? Unless it goes here, or 
maybe there. I'm still incredulous about this crap. Just plain dumb.

But then there's a lot of that because there are lost of people in the 
Linux world with what I call "secret knowledge" - defined as that stuff 
which, though I spend DAYS working through Linux, Ruby, HTML, CSS and 
god knows what else problems, I never seem to learn. Like where DO 
installed programs go?

And thanks for validating my concerns about Rubygems. Why is this thing, 
nice as it is, such a ... (uh "rhymes with witch") to install?

All I can say is that more people ought to be yelling. Just because 
we're grateful for the wonder that is ruby (and other, associated 
wonders) - and I certainly am - doesn't mean that it's acceptable that 
how to compile it is such a mystery that it actually makes sense for 
"Compiling Ruby, RubyGems and Rails on Ubuntu" to be a blog entry at the 
FiveRuns website - 
http://blog.fiveruns.com/2008/3/3/compiling-ruby-rubygems-and-rails-on-ubuntu/comments/5614.

It's a very nice entry, but why in blazes isn't it at the ruby-lang 
website? And one like for the other major OS's, as well? Does the ruby 
community (not to mention the Ubuntu, etc., communities) want broader 
acceptance or not? If so, then get this basic information out where we 
can find it. I'd be utterly dead in the water without Google and the 
enormous mercies of this list.

Well, I still don't have a functioning rubygems. Or rather, I do, but it 
cannot be found by my also-functional ruby install. Gotta go wrestle 
them alligators.

t.

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc / tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website) 
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~