Mongrel 3.15, Ubuntu and Park place (S3)

Rails
1

Hello. I installed under Ubuntu (Dapper) Park Place. I followed the
instructions given at the RedHanded site. I get the following mongrel
error when launching the application:

** Please login in with admin' and passwordpass@word1’
** You should change the default password or delete the admin at
soonest
chance!/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mongrel-0.3.12.5/lib/mongrel.rb:584:in
register': undefined methodresolve’ for nil:Mongrel::URIClassifier
(NoMethodError)
from
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mongrel-0.3.12.5/lib/mongrel.rb:720:in
uri' from /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/parkplace.rb:45:incloaker_’
from
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mongrel-0.3.12.5/lib/mongrel.rb:703:in
listener' from /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/parkplace.rb:44:incloaker_’
from
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mongrel-0.3.12.5/lib/mongrel.rb:661:in
initialize' from /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/parkplace.rb:43:inserve’
from /usr/bin/parkplace:28

I did some research attempting to fix this issue, but without luck.
Any ideas form the mongrel/parkplace people?

Thank you.

2

Hey,

What you’re experiencing is the annoying habit of Debian to not install
half of every package you intend to use. By default it installs only a
bare ruby carved out of the main source, and then separates just about
everything else you need to compile extensions. Since a huge number
of
gems and software for ruby requires a compiling extensions, this means
you
can’t use just about anything on the internet without installing a
billion
other debian packages.

I’m sure there’s some information on the other 100,000,000,000 debian
packages you’ll need in addition to ruby just to use ruby. Make sure
you
remember to install the following as well:

  1. letters-a-c, letter-d-e, etc. You need these to type.
  2. tcpip-header-bytes-0-40, etc. Without this you’re missing tcp/ip.
  3. gcc-headers, gcc-compiler, gcc-preprocessor, gcc-assembler,
    gcc-backend-c, gcc-backend-c++, gcc-documentat-page-1,
    gcc-documentation-page2 and lots of other gcc packages.
  4. Then anything that says ruby in it, just in case.

And always remember, the people doing debian know a lot more about how
ruby works than you’ll ever know, and I’m sure they are chock full of
explanations (but not solutions) to nearly every complaint leveled at
them. See, that’s what smart people do, they explain rather than
listen.
I know because I’m smart and I love explaining things to people.

Can anyone tell I’m incredibly annoyed at the state of the debian
packages? Is there a way to get this fixed for good? Can we please
always always install the gear needed to compile new extensions
and install any gem? That’d be super fresh for sure.

Hell, at least a damn message that says, “If you plan to do anything
with
anything related to ruby ever then you probably want to install [INSERT
200 PACKAGES HERE] as well.”

That’d be awesome. Thanks.

Zed A. Shaw

http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/

P.S. I’m going to write up what you need to do and put it on the Mongrel
site. Basically you need to install a few more packages and make sure
that the http11 extension gets created.

3

Hi Zed,

What you’re experiencing is the annoying habit of Debian to not install
half of every package you intend to use…

Yeah, this is annoying as hell. We already discussed this a while back.
If
I remember correctly, even Matz defended this or at least said we should
show more respect. He himself uses Debian as do a lot of other Ruby
committers. It was suggested that there would be a virtual package that
links to all the others, but I haven’t checked if this was actually
done.

-Sa?a Ebach

4

} 4) Then anything that says ruby in it, just in case.

apt-get install ruby1.8-dev

Oh, cool, I have to check that out.

-Sa?a Ebach

5

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 08:16:23PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
} What you’re experiencing is the annoying habit of Debian to not
install
} half of every package you intend to use. By default it installs only
a
} bare ruby carved out of the main source, and then separates just about
} everything else you need to compile extensions. Since a huge number
of
} gems and software for ruby requires a compiling extensions, this means
you
} can’t use just about anything on the internet without installing a
billion
} other debian packages.

Gee, yeah, that’s terrible. I had a whole lot of trouble when I was
trying
to install… no, wait, everything worked pretty much perfectly. Hm. I
installed ruby, ri, and irb. And librmagick-ruby. And libdbd-pg-ruby.
And,
oddly, I never had a need to compile an extension through a gem install
since the packages already existed, precompiled.

} I’m sure there’s some information on the other 100,000,000,000 debian
} packages you’ll need in addition to ruby just to use ruby. Make sure
you
} remember to install the following as well:
}
} 1) letters-a-c, letter-d-e, etc. You need these to type.
} 2) tcpip-header-bytes-0-40, etc. Without this you’re missing tcp/ip.

Oh, yes, very clever. Ha ha. You are so witty.

} 3) gcc-headers, gcc-compiler, gcc-preprocessor, gcc-assembler,
} gcc-backend-c, gcc-backend-c++, gcc-documentat-page-1,
} gcc-documentation-page2 and lots of other gcc packages.

apt-get install build-essential

} 4) Then anything that says ruby in it, just in case.

apt-get install ruby1.8-dev

} And always remember, the people doing debian know a lot more about how
} ruby works than you’ll ever know, and I’m sure they are chock full of
} explanations (but not solutions) to nearly every complaint leveled at
} them. See, that’s what smart people do, they explain rather than
listen.
} I know because I’m smart and I love explaining things to people.

The most important aspect of Debian is consistent policy. That policy
allows hundreds of people to work independently on packaging software
without stepping on one another’s toes. A good part of the policy can
actually be checked automatically, which reduces the QA load for
packages.
One aspect of that policy is to separate out the part of an application
one
uses (e.g. executables and core libraries) from extensions (e.g.
rmagick)
and development headers (e.g. ruby1.8-dev). This provides flexibility in
system administration in that one can create a small-footprint system
that
provides all the functionality needed for a particular purpose.

Needing to compile anything under Debian is deliberately rare. Various
flavors of the kernel, a wide variety of flavors of programs (e.g.
vim-tiny, vim-ruby, vim-full, vimpart, etc.), and lots of program
extensions (e.g. librmagick-ruby, libdbd-pg-ruby) are all provided
precompiled. I don’t think I’ve needed to compile anything on my Debian
system for nearly three years other than code I wrote myself. This is a
Good Thing.

} Can anyone tell I’m incredibly annoyed at the state of the debian
} packages? Is there a way to get this fixed for good? Can we please
} always always install the gear needed to compile new
extensions
} and install any gem? That’d be super fresh for sure.

Yes, it’s pretty easy. Create that virtual package you want. Host it
somewhere as a Debian repository (you might even be able to host it on
alioth). Tell people about it.

} Hell, at least a damn message that says, “If you plan to do anything
with
} anything related to ruby ever then you probably want to install
[INSERT
} 200 PACKAGES HERE] as well.”

Talk to Fumitoshi Ukai, the maintainer of the Ruby packages for Debian.
Ask
him to put it in /usr/share/doc/ruby/README.Debian for the ruby package.
Maybe submit a Debian bug report on it. (You do know how to use
reportbug, don’t you?)

Pissing and moaning on the Ruby list is not going to change anything on
the
Debian side. Many years and a lot of effort has gone into converging on
good policy and channels for change. If you learn about them and follow
them, you have a much better chance of succeeding at your task, whether
that is compiling/installing extensions or changing how Ruby is
packaged.

} That’d be awesome. Thanks.
} Zed A. Shaw
[…]
–Greg

6

On 5/1/06 7:13 AM, “Gregory S.” [email protected]
wrote:

without stepping on one another’s toes. A good part of the policy can
extensions (e.g. librmagick-ruby, libdbd-pg-ruby) are all provided
precompiled. I don’t think I’ve needed to compile anything on my Debian
system for nearly three years other than code I wrote myself. This is a
Good Thing.

I rest my case. No fix to the problem–hell not even an acknowledgement
that it is a problem–instead an explanation of why it’s not a problem
which
basically amounts to a personal attack with pathetically structured
insults
and then a stance on the pedestal of elitism.

And no, blasting more package install commands at me when “apt-get
install
ruby” should be enough is not a fix. The problem still comes up, it is
reported about once a week, and nobody notices or cares. Bitching and
whining is about the only thing I’ve got time for, and since I didn’t
break
it and the people involved don’t listen to complaints or consider this a
bug
(see your own explanations above as to why nobody in control thinks it’s
a
bug) I don’t feel obligated to do much to help fix it.

If this many people continually run into the problem of how debian
packages
are managed then it’s time to evaluate how they’re done. Since I’m not
a
debian person, but I have to support them, I feel pretty annoyed. Of
course
the response you get from clever and intelligent Debian folks like
yourself
is not, “Hmmm, we could probably fix that for everyone by doing …”
but
is instead, “You’re a fucking moron because I’m a billion times smarter
than
you since I use debian. RTFM you luzer. LOL OMG! I’m so l33t h@x0r.
Windoze
sucks! LOL!”

But then again, this is exactly why Linux will never be worth piss in a
barrel on the desktop and all you brilliant little debian hackers with
your
precious QA process–which is obviously broken since nothing seems to
work
in an obvious manner–can live in your dark corner of the world spending
days setting up trivial things like ruby. Hell, even Ruby on Windows
is
easier to use than on Debian.

Zed A. Shaw

7

On 5/1/06, Gregory S. [email protected] wrote:

Needing to compile anything under Debian is deliberately rare. Various
flavors of the kernel, a wide variety of flavors of programs (e.g.
vim-tiny, vim-ruby, vim-full, vimpart, etc.), and lots of program
extensions (e.g. librmagick-ruby, libdbd-pg-ruby) are all provided
precompiled. I don’t think I’ve needed to compile anything on my Debian
system for nearly three years other than code I wrote myself. This is a
Good Thing.

The gem for sqlite requires compilation. For the rest, only after Zed
shed some light on this matter, I’ve benn able to find the packages
you mention in your post, and have been able to compile mongrel
(unfortunately a problem still seems to exist, and I’ll email Zed
separately to seek for assistance).

8

Hi Sascha, maybe you want to check this out (I presume you’re German):

http://o9y.net/archives/2006/02/17/ruby-on-rails-mittels-mod_fcgi-fur-apache-2-unter-debian/

9

On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 07:13:59AM -0400, Gregory S. wrote:
} On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 08:16:23PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
} } What you’re experiencing is the annoying habit of Debian to not
install
} } half of every package you intend to use. By default it installs
only a
} } bare ruby carved out of the main source, and then separates just
about
} } everything else you need to compile extensions. Since a huge
number of
} } gems and software for ruby requires a compiling extensions, this
means you
} } can’t use just about anything on the internet without installing a
billion
} } other debian packages.
}
} Gee, yeah, that’s terrible. I had a whole lot of trouble when I was
trying
} to install… no, wait, everything worked pretty much perfectly. Hm. I
} installed ruby, ri, and irb. And librmagick-ruby. And libdbd-pg-ruby.
And,
} oddly, I never had a need to compile an extension through a gem
install
} since the packages already existed, precompiled.
}
} } I’m sure there’s some information on the other 100,000,000,000
debian
} } packages you’ll need in addition to ruby just to use ruby. Make
sure you
} } remember to install the following as well:
} }
} } 1) letters-a-c, letter-d-e, etc. You need these to type.
} } 2) tcpip-header-bytes-0-40, etc. Without this you’re missing
tcp/ip.
}
} Oh, yes, very clever. Ha ha. You are so witty.
}
} } 3) gcc-headers, gcc-compiler, gcc-preprocessor, gcc-assembler,
} } gcc-backend-c, gcc-backend-c++, gcc-documentat-page-1,
} } gcc-documentation-page2 and lots of other gcc packages.
}
} apt-get install build-essential
}
} } 4) Then anything that says ruby in it, just in case.
}
} apt-get install ruby1.8-dev
}
} } And always remember, the people doing debian know a lot more about
how
} } ruby works than you’ll ever know, and I’m sure they are chock full
of
} } explanations (but not solutions) to nearly every complaint leveled
at
} } them. See, that’s what smart people do, they explain rather than
listen.
} } I know because I’m smart and I love explaining things to people.
}
} The most important aspect of Debian is consistent policy. That policy
} allows hundreds of people to work independently on packaging software
} without stepping on one another’s toes. A good part of the policy can
} actually be checked automatically, which reduces the QA load for
packages.
} One aspect of that policy is to separate out the part of an
application one
} uses (e.g. executables and core libraries) from extensions (e.g.
rmagick)
} and development headers (e.g. ruby1.8-dev). This provides flexibility
in
} system administration in that one can create a small-footprint system
that
} provides all the functionality needed for a particular purpose.
}
} Needing to compile anything under Debian is deliberately rare. Various
} flavors of the kernel, a wide variety of flavors of programs (e.g.
} vim-tiny, vim-ruby, vim-full, vimpart, etc.), and lots of program
} extensions (e.g. librmagick-ruby, libdbd-pg-ruby) are all provided
} precompiled. I don’t think I’ve needed to compile anything on my
Debian
} system for nearly three years other than code I wrote myself. This is
a
} Good Thing.
}
}
} Pissing and moaning on the Ruby list is not going to change anything
on the
} Debian side. Many years and a lot of effort has gone into converging
on
} good policy and channels for change. If you learn about them and
follow
} them, you have a much better chance of succeeding at your task,
whether
} that is compiling/installing extensions or changing how Ruby is
packaged.
}
} } That’d be awesome. Thanks.
} } Zed A. Shaw
} […]
} --Greg
}
} _______________________________________________
} Rails mailing list
} [email protected]
} http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
}

On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 12:18:01PM -0400, Zed S. wrote:
} On 5/1/06 7:13 AM, “Gregory S.” [email protected]
wrote:
}
} > On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 08:16:23PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
[…]
} I rest my case. No fix to the problem–hell not even an
acknowledgement
} that it is a problem–instead an explanation of why it’s not a problem
which
} basically amounts to a personal attack with pathetically structured
insults
} and then a stance on the pedestal of elitism.

sigh Clearly my post was too long, and you didn’t actually read to the
bottom. This one is shorter. Let me quote the relevant fixes I gave:

} Can anyone tell I'm incredibly annoyed at the state of the debian
} packages?  Is there a way to get this fixed for good?  Can we
} *please* *always* ***always*** install the gear needed to compile
} new extensions and install any gem?  That'd be super fresh for
} sure.

Yes, it's pretty easy. Create that virtual package you want. Host
it somewhere as a Debian repository (you might even be able to host
it on alioth). Tell people about it.

} Hell, at least a damn message that says, "If you plan to do
} anything with anything related to ruby ever then you probably
} want to install [INSERT 200 PACKAGES HERE] as well."

Talk to Fumitoshi Ukai, the maintainer of the Ruby packages for
Debian. Ask him to put it in /usr/share/doc/ruby/README.Debian for
the ruby package. Maybe submit a Debian bug report on it. (You *do*
know how to use reportbug, don't you?)

} And no, blasting more package install commands at me when “apt-get
install
} ruby” should be enough is not a fix. The problem still comes up, it
is
} reported about once a week, and nobody notices or cares. Bitching and
} whining is about the only thing I’ve got time for, and since I didn’t
break
} it and the people involved don’t listen to complaints or consider this
a bug
} (see your own explanations above as to why nobody in control thinks
it’s a
} bug) I don’t feel obligated to do much to help fix it.
[…]

You seem to feel an extraordinary level of entitlement about this. Why
is
it someone else’s responsibility to solve your problems when you are
providing neither money nor so much as a pleasant word as compensation?

} Zed A. Shaw
–Greg

10

Oops! Didn’t trim properly in the last message.

On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 12:18:01PM -0400, Zed S. wrote:
} On 5/1/06 7:13 AM, “Gregory S.” [email protected]
wrote:
}
} > On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 08:16:23PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
[…]
} I rest my case. No fix to the problem–hell not even an
acknowledgement
} that it is a problem–instead an explanation of why it’s not a problem
which
} basically amounts to a personal attack with pathetically structured
insults
} and then a stance on the pedestal of elitism.

sigh Clearly my post was too long, and you didn’t actually read to the
bottom. This one is shorter. Let me quote the relevant fixes I gave:

} Can anyone tell I'm incredibly annoyed at the state of the debian
} packages?  Is there a way to get this fixed for good?  Can we
} *please* *always* ***always*** install the gear needed to compile
} new extensions and install any gem?  That'd be super fresh for
} sure.

Yes, it's pretty easy. Create that virtual package you want. Host
it somewhere as a Debian repository (you might even be able to host
it on alioth). Tell people about it.

} Hell, at least a damn message that says, "If you plan to do
} anything with anything related to ruby ever then you probably
} want to install [INSERT 200 PACKAGES HERE] as well."

Talk to Fumitoshi Ukai, the maintainer of the Ruby packages for
Debian. Ask him to put it in /usr/share/doc/ruby/README.Debian for
the ruby package. Maybe submit a Debian bug report on it. (You *do*
know how to use reportbug, don't you?)

} And no, blasting more package install commands at me when “apt-get
install
} ruby” should be enough is not a fix. The problem still comes up, it
is
} reported about once a week, and nobody notices or cares. Bitching and
} whining is about the only thing I’ve got time for, and since I didn’t
break
} it and the people involved don’t listen to complaints or consider this
a bug
} (see your own explanations above as to why nobody in control thinks
it’s a
} bug) I don’t feel obligated to do much to help fix it.
[…]

You seem to feel an extraordinary level of entitlement about this. Why
is
it someone else’s responsibility to solve your problems when you are
providing neither money nor so much as a pleasant word as compensation?

} Zed A. Shaw
–Greg

11

cd /usr/ports/lang/ruby18 && make install clean

That’s how the REAL 1337 h4x0rz do it OMG LOL!!1one

12

Ruby On Rails is a success (at least within us) because it has
reasonable
defaults and conventions.

Now you are saying that debian is nice because it has everything we
need…
it is just a lot of effort to figure it out… but at least some linux
hacker could easily build a small-footprint system.

What’s the ratio of people building small footprint systems versus
people
that just don’t care about package size and just want things working as
they
expect (i.e. the principle of Least Surprises). Why default to the least
used scenario?

Debian’s policies are the opposite of RoR’s policies - and that is what
makes me like RoR by the way.

But yes, there are many dists out there…

13

I may not be much of a power-user, but I used Ezra’s instructions to get
a
Debain VPS up and running from a base install of Debian Sarge, and I had
absolutely zero problems with Ruby. The only thing I had to compile and
install was Lighty. I actually had the hardest time getting the
ImageMagick
stuff to work with FreeType, and I don’t really feel that I can blame
that
on Debian. Overall, I’ve been very happy. It’s a small footprint,
extremely
stable, and has worked as expected the whole time.

Just my 2c.

Matt

14

On 5/1/06, Gregory S. [email protected] wrote:

providing neither money nor so much as a pleasant word as compensation?
As one of the most vocal people about the insanity that Debian’s
supposedly “sane” model causes, I will state something unequivocally:

Debian claims to protect people from upstream issues. It doesn’t.

More importantly, it doesn’t actually protect upstream developers from
Debian’s insanity. Zed’s problem, I think, is that he doesn’t use
Debian. Neither do I. But we have users who do use Debian. We feel a
responsibility to those users of our packages to support them. But the
problem isn’t in our software. The problem is – and always has been
– Debian.

I have actually started saying something like: “It looks like a Debian
problem. I don’t use Debian. I can’t help you. Once you have the
Debian side solved, if you’re still experiencing a problem, I’ll be
happy to help you.”

Ruby on Debian is broken. No, that’s too kind. Ruby on Debian is a
disaster. And this is the team that wants RubyGems to change to
support its disastrous model? No, thanks.

-austin

15

amusing thread. I got ruby running easily running on my debian box, but
failed at Lighty…

Zed and Austin, what distro are you guys using ?

16

On 5/1/06, Zed S. [email protected] wrote:

} I know because I’m smart and I love explaining things to people.

basically amounts to a personal attack with pathetically structured insults
If this many people continually run into the problem of how debian packages
precious QA process–which is obviously broken since nothing seems to work
in an obvious manner–can live in your dark corner of the world spending
days setting up trivial things like ruby. Hell, even Ruby on Windows is
easier to use than on Debian.

I’ve also been frustrated by the Debian packaging of Ruby. It always
pissed me off having to go and find each stupid dependency package
that I need for each thing (zlib, readline, gnomecanvas, termios,
etc).

17

Yeah, I second that. What are you using? I’m open to suggestions for
future
deployment… I see a lot of people using FreeBSD, but I don’t know
enough
to say whether it’s good or bad.

Matt

18

On 5/1/06, Roberto S. [email protected] wrote:

amusing thread. I got ruby running easily running on my debian box, but
failed at Lighty…

Zed and Austin, what distro are you guys using ?

I don’t do Rails software, but I support people using PDF::Writer.
Currently, I do all of my development of the various packages that I
created/support/own on Windows.

I will be buying a Mac later this year.

That said, I do use Ubuntu on my linode, when I remember that I have
it. I just don’t have any applications running on it yet.

-austin

19

Hows does Ubuntu stack up? It’s based on Debian.

20

On 5/1/06, GravyFace [email protected] wrote:

Hows does Ubuntu stack up? It’s based on Debian.

Just as bad.

It does some things better than Debian itself, but it inherits a lot
of the nonsense.

I always build Ruby from scratch on Debian. Anything else is nonsense.

-austin