On Mar 18, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

> On 18/03/10 at 23:31 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Nick Brown wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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...
>>=20
>> I completely agree that the split sucks.  We run a Ruby service that
>> requires our users to install a simple script on their servers.  It
>> does use net/https to communicate, so about 80% of our support issues
>> on Debian systems are us explaining to users how to finish their Ruby
>> install.
>>=20
>> In my opinion, the problem is that the Debian maintainers have =
changed
>> what it means to install Ruby.  That's not OK to me, because it's not
>> their call to make.  The Ruby core team gets to decide what it means
>> to install Ruby.
>=20
> Apparently, the ruby core team is OK with the current situation, since
> apt-get install ruby1.9.1-full/ruby-full is advertised on
> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/. You might want to educate your
> users to read the documentation.

I added that to the site recently to help with this issue.  ;)  (It was =
recommended by another user running into the same problem, so I don't =
think I'm totally alone.)

> Also, I disagree that it's not our call to make. Most of the software
> shipped by Debian is split in seperate packages, and Ruby is the only
> case where I hear people complaining about such a minor issue.

I find you calling the legitimate complaint that some of us are trying =
to explain to you civilly, "such a minor issue," at least as offensive =
as those of our community who have been rude to you.  I build Ruby =
software for a living and Debian's packaging does increase our support =
issues.  Please respect that I have a viable opinion.

>> All of the standard libraries are meant to be
>> installed so you can count on having them.  By changing that =
decision,
>> Debian has made it so you can't count on having them and that changes
>> the rules of what you can do with Ruby.
>=20
> If, maybe, the Ruby community fixed the fact that it's illegal to load
> all of stdlib in the same process (because of OpenSSL vs GPL), we =
could
> consider including ssl and readline in the default lib pkg.

Ruby obviously ships these libraries together without issue.  I assume =
it's because the responsibility falls to the user not to load them in =
some illegal situation.

I don't see how that wouldn't be OK for Debian too.  Obviously it is, =
since you do offer full install options, right?

Or am I misunderstanding something?  (Very possible, as I am not an =
expert in these matters.)

James Edward Gray II