Craig White wrote: > On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:40 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us 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"