Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:45:00 -0800 From: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> Cc: FreeBSD Ruby List <freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: More problems than I care to think about Message-ID: <20121119134500.4e2ccea68e6b161f18b2efae@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <C344B4A6795FF630D180D431@utd71538.campus.ad.utdallas.edu> References: <76BB3E3F07A4F68477B30C11@utd71538.campus.ad.utdallas.edu> <138C62E5-F2ED-439F-AFA8-777A48B2A87B@freebsd.org> <C344B4A6795FF630D180D431@utd71538.campus.ad.utdallas.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:28:56 -0600 Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> mentioned: > --On November 15, 2012 3:59:36 PM -0800 Stanislav Sedov <stas@freebsd.org> > wrote: > > > > All the ruby ports are already at the latest version and we do generally > > a very good job to keep them updated (and we backport fixes and patches > > regularly). Rubygems a lot more complicated as there're a lot of messy > > dependencies between them and a lot of times you cannot just update > > something because a lot of other stuff that depend on a particular > > version will break as a result. That's why my recommendation always was > > to try to keep all gems out of the ports tree unless absolutely > > necessary. Frankly, it does not make much sense at all to put gems into > > ports, as gems, unlike ports, support multiple versions being installed, > > and a lot of ruby software depend on that feature. > > > > I don't know what kind of problem you're experiencing with event machine, > > but I guess it is not ruby related. It'd be helpful if you can post more > > info. I use eventmachine both from ports and gems for several production > > application with ruby 1.9 and have not seen any segfaults (except the one > > that was housed by my own C extension library). > > > > There isn't anything wrong (that I'm aware of) with the ruby ports, but > ruby-gems are a disaster. They're not up to date, and as you point out > even fixing that wouldn't fix everything that's wrong with them. > > After completely giving up on the port I downloaded the app, downloaded > gems and installed it, ran gem install rails, then went to the directory > where I put the program and ran bundle install. This (supposedly) > downloaded everything I needed to run the app. > > The next step was to create the database by running 'bundle exec rake > snorby:setup'. Rake wasn't installed, so I had to install that. Running > it again gave me an error that libmyslqclient.so.15 was not found. That's > because I'm running 5.5, not 5.0. > > After fixing that, I got another error and that's when I said screw this - > i've got better things to do with my time than beat a damn app into > submission while taking 15 years off my life. > > Gems sucks. Rails sucks. The whole idea is stupid and sucks. > > Someone else will have to do it. I'm done with gems, rails and snorby. > I understand your frustration, I've been there too. Most of the rails/ruby stuff is intended for developers who will have to adjust stuff for their use, and not for end users. Hence a lot of utils in ruby land is optimised for development and not for deployment/delivery. I discovered too that using gems directly through bundle or rbenv or similar is much easier and productive than try to make ports work. This is mostly due to the fact that ports do not support multiple versions of the same gem installed and have no way to support the notion of a "gemset" as well. I should note though, that most gem maintainers are very nice and responsive, so you might consider submitting a patch for the mysql gem upstream that fixes the problem. -- ST4096-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121119134500.4e2ccea68e6b161f18b2efae>