Craig White wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:40 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> use RPM packages, Google 'enterprise ruby' and install it (it's Ruby
>>> 1.8.7) It's not likely to get any more updates though. If you get off
>>> the
>>
>> Sorry, can't do that. As I believe I mentioned, they formerly required
>> the 1.8.7 enterprise version, not the packaged version.
> ----
> enterprise ruby - clearly the best version of ruby 1.8.7 available
> anywhere and is available in RPM form.
>
> http://www.rubyenterpriseedition.com/
Except we had it installed not from rpm.
> ----
>>> need to have RPM packages, both rbenv & rvm install an alternate that
>>> downloads ruby source and compiles it for you and gives you sufficient
>>> shell modifications to make it appear somewhat seamless (I'm not
>>> promising the world here but it's not that difficult and my work has
>>> some CentOS 5.x still running enterprise-ruby-1.8.7 and everything
>>> newer has been Ubuntu 10.04 and either uses enterprise-ruby for 1.8.7
>>> (becoming rare these days) and all new setups are rbenv and ruby
1.9.3-pXXX
>>
>> Could you tell me what other, widely-used languages that don't have
>> their most recent stable versions in packages for the most-used
distros? I'm
>> not aware of any.
>> Why is it that they don't package it?
> ----
> shouldn't you be asking this of upstream? They're the ones who choose
> which versions to include.
No. If I cared enough, I'd ask on the RUBY list. It's ruby.org that
appears to ignore CentOS and all other RH-derived distros.
Btw, you might notice we're on the CentOS, not ubuntu, or some other
distro list.
>>
>> I see, with a little googling, that it seems to be mostly ruby promoters
>> arguing it can scale, and a lot of everyone else being aware of issues.
>> And *I* have issues with it - it reminds me of python, 10-12 years ago,
>> when each subrelease would break code that was working fine. IIRC, when
>> I went to get a newer python required by one package I wanted to use, it
>> broke yum on RH 7.3 or 9, something like that, and ruby seems to be like
>> that.
>>
>> AND I can't just rsync our internal repo with the latest volume, it
>> looks like I'll have to build it separately on each machine - I mean,
if it
>> needs compiling....
> ----
> rbenv and rvm have wonderful mechanisms for downloading & building ruby
> and even allow you multiple versions on the same computer running at the
> same time. The simplification of the process is quite complete.
I notice that you are ignoring my issues, and go on about how wonderful
the unique ruby package manager is, and say nothing of installing on a
number of machines at once.
>
> Of course you wouldn't understand these things because you made up your
> mind a long time ago.
I've only slowly made up my mind, but the more I have to deal with ruby,
as I said, the less I like it.
You, on the other hand, have already come here with the attitude of "my
way or the highway"; this is *NOT* the way to encourage folks to change
their minds.* Nor is it helpful to me.
mark
* "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar"
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
