Ruby has not been added to LSB 3.2 (but both Perl and Python


#1

I’ve seen that the next version of LSB 3.2 (will be released on June,
2007) will add Perl and Python but not Ruby. That mean that the next
Linux distributions that follow the LSB standard as Debian or Ubuntu
will have Perl and Python by default.

http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB_Roadmap

Ruby is the second best programming language that can be easily used
for SOP (Script-Oriented Programming) only behind of sh shell. So the
Ruby community should to inform / contact / press to linux-
foundation.org for that Ruby also been added.

http://merd.sourceforge.net/pixel/language-study/scripting-language/


#2

GinTon wrote:

foundation.org for that Ruby also been added.

http://merd.sourceforge.net/pixel/language-study/scripting-language/

While I agree that Ruby “should” be part of the LSB, the fact is that
the committees that oversee LSB and other standards are composed of
people invited to be there, not people who believe that they should
be there. So don’t expect much without a lot of networking. And don’t
expect whining to get you anything. :slight_smile:


#3

Or just…
popularize many handy Ruby-based [system] utilities that people “can’t
live without”.


#4

Paul S. wrote:

Or just…
popularize many handy Ruby-based [system] utilities that people “can’t
live without”.

I think that must be the point - it’s not that the LSB people
necessarily like Perl and Python over Ruby, it’s just that more
system-almost-critical scripts and tools are written in them than are
written in Ruby.


#5

On May 27, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Paul S. wrote:

Or just…
popularize many handy Ruby-based [system] utilities that people “can’t
live without”.

or dont worry about it.
just apt get it.


#6

On Sat, 26 May 2007, GinTon wrote:

foundation.org for that Ruby also been added.

http://merd.sourceforge.net/pixel/language-study/scripting-language/

I don’t see how not including Ruby by default could be a problem (mind
you I haven’t checked what “including by default” means - does it, as I
assume, that a distro to be LSB compliant needs to ship Perl/Python as
part of its base installation?). However I see how including Python and
Perl by default could be a problem: bloat. And if you add Ruby too: more
bloat.

I can’t see what’s so difficult about “apt-get install ruby”, or
whatever
that is in the other distros.
*t


#7

IIRC all distros have at least one component that’s written in
Python. The Red
Hat installer, Anaconda, is written in Python. I’m not sure about
Perl, though.

This is exactly the kind of reason why these are installed by
default, I suspect. Much software that is part of the distro and is
commonly used may need Perl and Python to run some install scripts.
Certainly, any Apache install almost always is installed with Perl.
Perl more than any other scripting language is pretty much bound to
Linux and Unix by history and the loads of tools that use it/are
built with it.


#8

Quoting Alex Y. removed_email_address@domain.invalid:


Alex

IIRC all distros have at least one component that’s written in Python.
The Red
Hat installer, Anaconda, is written in Python. I’m not sure about Perl,
though.


#9

Quoting Tomas P.'s Mailing L. removed_email_address@domain.invalid:

for SOP (Script-Oriented Programming) only behind of sh shell. So the
bloat.

I can’t see what’s so difficult about “apt-get install ruby”, or whatever
that is in the other distros.
*t

I agree … furthermore, it just flat out ain’t gonna happen on some
distros,
like Gentoo. Gentoo is very much a customizable distro. If you’re a
minimalist,
you can bring the system up with a “stage3” install. Gentoo, being
source-based,
however, does have something by default that most of the major distros
– RPM
and DEB based – don’t have: gcc. So a minimal Gentoo box will have more
stuff
than a minimal Red Hat or Debian box.

In any event, LSB is purely an attempt to converge the two major
dialects of
Linux, Red Hat/RPM and Debian/DEB, into something that people from
either side
of the fence can deal with. “Also-rans” like Gentoo and Ruby are not
part of
this by the intention of the committee. Ruby can do itself a big favor,
and
Rails can do itself an even bigger favor, by embracing the standard,
rather
than whining about being excluded.