# RE: Why Does Ruby on Debian Blow? (Was: Mongrel 3.15, Ubuntu **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [May 5, 2006, 1:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-why-does-ruby-on-debian-blow-was-mongrel-3-15-ubuntu/94495 "2006-05-05T01:28:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Ross_D)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 1:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-why-does-ruby-on-debian-blow-was-mongrel-3-15-ubuntu/94495/1 "2006-05-05T01:28:49Z")
One scanario where you might want to separate would be a productions server running Ruby apps. Would you want or need irb, ri and rdoc on a server where you’re not doing development? (that’s not a retorical question I’m new to Ruby and Rails) For the Ruby or Rails developer I agree it is a bit of a pain. I’m planning on building a Debian Rails box so I might look at creating a meta package and submit it to the package maintainer time permitting. The downside is the long time it will take to get to a stable release (the one problem I have with Debian). Cheers Ross ---
**Author:** ![Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Ross_D)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 4:21am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-why-does-ruby-on-debian-blow-was-mongrel-3-15-ubuntu/94495/2 "2006-05-05T04:21:48Z")
On 5/4/06, Ross D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > One scanario where you might want to separate would be a productions > server running Ruby apps. Would you want or need irb, ri and rdoc on > a server where you’re not doing development? (that’s not a retorical > question I’m new to Ruby and Rails) That’s why I made the statement that I did: ``` And the problem is that irb1.8, ri1.8, and rdoc1.8 have no business being separate. (At least the program files.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The data files, I won't argue with. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Ok. ri and rdoc aren’t just commands. There are classes behind both. Rdoc is a full-on document generator and templating system with an interface to graphviz. (Limited purpose on that interface, but it’s present nonetheless.) Ri is _generated_ by rdoc, but the ri system is also a YAML data lookup. These things – and bits and pieces of irb – could be used by the enterprising developer interested in reuse. So … no. There’s no good excuse for carving up the bits of the Ruby Standard Library that aren’t bringing in X (e.g., Ruby’s Tk support). I do not believe that zlib and OpenSSL are optional components of Ruby, either. (zlib is required to make RubyGems run; there is an optional security feature built into RubyGems that can be done with … OpenSSL.) -austin ---
**Author:** ![Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Ross_D)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 7:16am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-why-does-ruby-on-debian-blow-was-mongrel-3-15-ubuntu/94495/3 "2006-05-05T07:16:50Z")
> > > > > “Ross” == Ross D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes: > One scanario where you might want to separate would be a productions > server running Ruby apps. Would you want or need irb, ri and rdoc on > a server where you’re not doing development? Yes, you would. Because at some point, probably at 3AM on a Sunday morning, the application is going to break down and you’ll want tools available with which to fix it. If someone decided to save a few measly kilobytes out of the machine’s several hundred gigabytes of disk by not including those tools, you’re going to hate that someone quite a lot. ## Reverse the question, if you will. When does it ever _hurt_ to have a full Ruby installation there? The whole thing is only a few megabytes (26MB for Ruby 1.9.0 on my OSX machine, and half of that is documentation), you’d have to be extremely short on disk for it to make a practical difference to take out _parts_ of it. The Debian variant of chopping it up into (according to a Debian proponent’s post yesterday) _twelve_ pieces (several of which don’t even mention Ruby in their names!) seems to me to very much be a “one size fits nobody” solution. ``` Calle D. http://www.livejournal.com/users/cdybedahl/ Please pay no attention to the panda in the fridge. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Ross_D)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 9:51am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-why-does-ruby-on-debian-blow-was-mongrel-3-15-ubuntu/94495/4 "2006-05-05T09:51:44Z")
Calle D. wrote: > > One scanario where you might want to separate would be a productions > > server running Ruby apps. Would you want or need irb, ri and rdoc on > > a server where you’re not doing development? > > Yes, you would. Because at some point, probably at 3AM on a Sunday > morning, the application is going to break down and you’ll want tools > available with which to fix it. If someone decided to save a few > measly kilobytes out of the machine’s several hundred gigabytes of > disk by not including those tools, you’re going to hate that someone > quite a lot. > We are rather assuming that they were split out because of the space > argument, here… Maybe there was another issue? It wouldn’t be unlike > Debian to split a package over, for instance, legal or licencing issues. ---
**Author:** ![Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Ross_D)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 10:01am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-why-does-ruby-on-debian-blow-was-mongrel-3-15-ubuntu/94495/5 "2006-05-05T10:01:09Z")
> > > > > “Alex” == Alex Y. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes: > We are rather assuming that they were split out because of the space > argument, here… Maybe there was another issue? It wouldn’t be > unlike Debian to split a package over, for instance, legal or > licencing issues. ## Space is the only issue the Debian proponents have mentioned so far. And when it comes to licensing issues I’ve only seem them distribute cut-down packages with the content that was insufficiently pure for them simply removed, not moved to a separate package. For example, to the best of my knowledge you don’t get the full documentation for Perl on a Debian system unless you download and install a source distribution yourself. ``` Calle D. http://www.livejournal.com/users/cdybedahl/ "I don't know what art these programs are state-of; possibly ``` macrame." – Dr Richard A. O’Keefe, comp.risks ---
**Author:** ![Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Ross_D)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 10:40am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-why-does-ruby-on-debian-blow-was-mongrel-3-15-ubuntu/94495/6 "2006-05-05T10:40:52Z")
On 05/05/06, Austin Z. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I do not believe that zlib and OpenSSL are optional components of Ruby, > either. (zlib is required to make RubyGems run; there is an optional > security feature built into RubyGems that can be done with … OpenSSL.) No doubt someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but debian seem to have political reasons for breaking out openssl - see: [cadaver licensing issues: openssl and GPL again](http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00111.html) for starters (realize that’s an old post, but it was still making my life awkward at Christmas). I don’t have time for that sort of thing, so I stopped using it. – Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns [http://number9.hellooperator.net/](http://number9.hellooperator.net/) ---
**Author:** ![Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@Ross\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Ross_D)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-why-does-ruby-on-debian-blow-was-mongrel-3-15-ubuntu/94495/7 "2006-05-05T19:25:58Z")
It sure doesn’t cost too much to keep them there and it would be great to know that Ruby is Ruby where ever you are. The day you need to debug something on the server in a jiffy, it’s great to have irb, ri and rdoc. Is it that expensive to have them there compared to fragmenting Ruby and the troubles and difficulties that may bring? Any way, I think I’m done with this thread. – G.