Indeed, relying on apt is not always good. It's great for trying out
packages, but in the end, you will be better off in your
understanding of the tools you are using if you just install them
yourself. With Rails and Ruby you're eventually going to have to do
installs yourself anyway, unless somebody else is doing it for you.
The same goes for OS X and MacPorts' opt, it is nice and convenient,
but the paths are going to be non-standard and you'll have to still
customize a lot of things to get things working, so you'll still need
to know the how/what/where/why.
If you can write the code, you can definitely install the stuff. It's
worth it for your Ruby points.
On Jun 12, 2007, at 3:15 AM, Neil Wilson wrote:
> The Rubygems package is now in Debian/Ubuntu, but it is mildly
> crippled. However if you run
>
> gem update --system
>
> then it magically turns into the normal ruby gem system.
>
> APT still doesn't know anything about gems, but it is less of a
> problem than you'd think.
>
> My approach with Ubuntu is to install from APT packages unless the APT
> package is just a port of a gem.
>
>
> On Jun 11, 7:18 pm, "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That all said, while I'm a happy Ubuntu user, I don't use packaged
>> versions of some specific software, most notably Ruby. This isn't
>> because of Ubuntu but because of Debian. In the case of Ruby one
>> major reason is because, as far as I know unless it's changed
>> recently, Debian (and therefore Ubuntu) doesn't really support gems.
>> Now this may have changed recently, but I've been happy installing
>> Ruby and Gems from source, and gems as gems.
>
>
|
Similar Threads
