On 19/03/10 at 00:32 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> 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:
> >> 
> >>> 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 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.
> >> 
> >> 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.
> > 
> > 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.

"Such a minor issue" was the split of many software packages into
seperate Debian packages, not the split of Ruby. Sorry if I have
offended you.

Interestingly, we don't get many complaints on the Debian side about
that.  The only place where I hear about it is on this list.

> >> 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.
> > 
> > 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.)

No, it just seems easier to ship everything in the same binary package
if this doesn't add a dubious licensing situation (but IANAL).

Also, the licensing issue will bite us (Debian) quite soon anyway.
Currently, we ship Ruby linked to libreadline5 (which is GPLv2). It is
likely that there will be a push to switch to libreadline6 (GPLv3), and
that will put us in an interesting situation when Ruby will be the only
application not having been switched to libreadline6.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas / lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas / nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |