A new subgroup for packaging efforts, like the Ubuntu PPA and any other future packaging efforts.
Note: This discussion was imported from Loomio. Click here to view the original discussion.
Proposal: Packaging Team -subgroup creation
A new subgroup for packaging efforts, like the Ubuntu PPA and any other future packaging efforts.
Rationale: Keep discussion to those who are working with these efforts.
Outcome: Motion Passed.
Votes:
- Yes: 9
- Abstain: 1
- No: 0
- Block: 0
Note: This proposal was imported from Loomio. Vote details, some comments and metadata were not imported. Click here to view the proposal with all details on Loomio.
While we’re at it, we could probably make an open call for packagers through small tech blogs like OMG! Ubuntu, WebUpd8, and through general announcements on our community channels of engagement. It might be useful to get some extra hands to help us package things up in a way that makes sense.
Also, it may be worth communicating with Lucas Nussbaum from the Debian project, as he’s primarily dealt with many of the issues Ruby has had with packaging in Debian. He might have some useful advice or a workaround
I’ve been planning something like this for Ubuntu:
- Metapackage for pulling build dependencies [done for precise]
- RVM install script triggered by metapackage (unless some local rvm install can be made in a better way)
- Build separate source package and have it install in some good standard location
- Make Ubuntu specific configuration script that will set the configuration items as env params, so no need to modify any .yml files in source dir
- Install needed init.d scripts to easily start the app
- Scripts to configure web servers
Let’s see 
Good thinking. Hans has expressed interest in looking into that, maybe we can draw up a game plan for what would need to be done first?
Sean, I sent you and Hans an email via Launchpad asking for opinions but as you guys didn’t answer thought I might as well start preparing 
Only done an initial source upload (0.0.1) and a meta package for precise that has the generic dependencies.
Anyway, I was figuring a place is needed for this kind of talk and thus the request for this subgroup…
Praveen, why not just build RVM locally?
Jason,
apt-get install diaspora would be the easiest option. I have not played with RVM much. It could be an interim solution.
Praveen, yep apt-get install diaspora is what it needs to be. But still, an RVM build can be done via post-install etc script. I’m just wondering whether keeping D* ruby in RVM would be cleaner for any persons installing as otherwise it will affect the computer Ruby installation.
But this kind of discussion is why a group is needed Good to know several people are working on this!
(I’m a Ruby n00b so just guessing that RVM would be cleaner)
For the Archlinux package we just went with bundle install --path vendor essentially since Arch has the latest and greatest Ruby and RubyGems available. It’s basically just a Shellscript (which needs some updating :P) check it out: https://gist.github.com/1647460 The original author is behind some weird firewall and I just did some little fixing and improving, still it should demonstrate a way of having the gems separated from the system wide ones without using RVM. RVM really is a user wide tool and I think the system wide installation is only possible because some people just wanted to have it without knowing better, it terribly sucks for system ruby management IMO.
As Florian mentioned somewhere else, bundle package is another path to investigate. Getting our huge dependency graph in the exact right versions into every distribution just doesn’t seem the right way too me.
The subgroup is really for splitting discussion in to logical subgroups - so that it will be easier for interested parties to participate. Of course it will not solve anything but as you can read below some packaging efforts to exist.
Created the subgroup - will add some members who have shown interest here - or you can request membership to the group yourself