[DRE-maint] Bug#588125: Rubygems 1.3.7 broken with Ruby 1.9.2 in Debian -- help needed

Alex Legler a3li at gentoo.org
Sat Aug 28 16:55:29 UTC 2010


On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 08:56:05 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
<lucas at lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:

> 
> After looking at this issue, I think that we should:
> - package rubygems1.8 from rubygems 1.3.7
> - package rubygems for 1.9.1 from the ruby 1.9.2 sources
> 

If it helps deciding what to do: We at Gentoo do the same thing
basically. We use 1.3.7 for both but port the changes made in the ruby
repository to the 1.9 version of rubygems-1.3.7. It's a ~300 line patch.

> While it's not the cleanest approach, it seems that it is the most
> reasonable solution given that upstream has failed to make sure that
> ruby1.9.2 wouldn't break with rubygems's rubygems. It might happen
> again in the future.
> 

The two-repo situation is indeed something that has to go away in the
near future, as it's really giving us downstream people a hard time.

> We need to decide on the following questions:
> 
> - Do we want to make the installation of rubygems optional with 1.9.1?
>   (as a separate package ?) That would probably be the right thing to
> do since I think that we should make the use of external package
> managers optional in Debian, but frankly, if we do that, some users
> are going to complain, and I'm totally tired of hearing complains
> about ruby packaging in Debian.

rubygems is a separate package on Gentoo. We also remove the
bundled gems (rdoc, minitest, rake), but rdoc is pulled in after
installing ruby by default, so if you do 'emerge ruby:1.9' you end up
with a near-complete ruby interpreter, as you get it directly from
upstream. If one should prefer not having rdoc or rubygems, they are
perfectly free and able to do that as well.

> - Do we want to disable gem update --system? I think that we should
>   allow a way for the user to do it anyway. For example, we could add
> a check for a "I_KNOW_WHAT_IM_DOING_ABOUT_GEM_UPDATE_SYSTEM"
> environment variable (ok, name could be improved). We would still
> refuse to gem update --system by default, but would accept it of the
> environment variable was set.

We don't disable it update --system at all. I'm not sure if I can offer
advice here, as we're in a different situation as a rolling-release
distro.

> - Paths: until consensus emerge in #448639, we should continue to
>   install gems in /var. Those changes should be moved to 
>   rubygems/defaults/operating_system.rb, but we may do that later, and
>   just continue with 01_default_gem_path.diff for now.

We've moved recently from /usr/{bin,lib/ruby/gems} to /usr/local.
gems from our official package management remain in /usr/ while
manually installed gems go to /usr/local. That way we also mitigate
that gem-can-overwrite-binary-files problem [0]

HTH,
Alex

[0] http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/24472

-- 
Alex Legler | Gentoo Security / Ruby
a3li at gentoo.org | a3li at jabber.ccc.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers/attachments/20100828/e0a47546/attachment-0001.pgp>


More information about the Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list