On 18/03/10 at 23:05 +0900, Nick Brown wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Which parts of ruby which are currently split out would you like to see
> > installed when the user installs ruby? For example, ruby ships a ruby
> > emacs mode. Installing that would require adding a dependency on emacs,
> > which doesn't sound reasonable.
> > 
> > Anyway, I've just added the following packages to the list of packages
> > that are "suggested" when someone installs ruby: irb, rdoc, ri,
> > libopenssl-ruby, ruby-dev.
> > That doesn't mean that they are installed automatically when the user
> > installs "ruby", but the package manager will suggest to install those
> > packages too.
> 
> Well, I don't know about emacs... I don't recall ever needing to install 
> emacs before installing ruby even from source, but on the other hand, 
> disk space and bandwidth are so cheap these days I wouldn't care one way 
> or the other.

In Debian, we do not ship software without appropriately describing what
other packages are required (as dependencies) to use it. ruby1.8-elisp
is a separate package that depends on emacs, so that is fine. But if we
wanted to ship the content of ruby1.8-elisp inside an hypothetical
full-featured ruby package, the right thing to do would be to depend on
emacs. This could become an interesting issue on some of the
architecture debian supports.

> But just yesterday I was trying to install mechanize (via rubygems) on 
> my 9.10 system, and it kept failing because 'net/https' was missing. And 
> I was scratching my head wonder why the heck a core piece of ruby like 
> that wouldn't be there... I thought perhaps my disk was going dead on 
> me... I eventually figured out what was up after some searching of the 
> net, but I think this illustrates the sort of confusion that can arise.

OpenSSL doesn't have a lot of fans, because of its licence that prevents
it from being linked to GPL software. Yes, it could be possible to ship
openssl.so and readline.so in the same package, but then it would be
harder to argue that Debian does enough to protect the linking of
readline (GPLv2) with openssl. The situation would be much simpler if
Ruby switched to GNU TLS, for example.

> The easiest way to solve this problem would be to rename "ruby" to 
> "ruby-core" or something, then rename "ruby-full" to "ruby". This would 
> allow the few who want partial ruby installs to still do so, but the 
> great masses of users (and hosting providers!) who expect the package 
> called "ruby" to be all of ruby will be spared confusion and 
> frustration.

I really think that this problem is a minor one, and not worth all the
noise around it. I'll see with the other maintainers if there's a way we
can improve the situation slightly. But the licensing issues involved
make me fear that it is unlikely.

> Also: don't let the unfriendly tone one often encounters on the internet 
> get ya down. The medium itself seems to encourage that sort of thing... 

That's not a reason to consider it acceptable.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas / lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas / nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |