install ruby1.9.1

[Clint Byrum]

On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 22:06 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 21/01/11 at 10:06 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 10:24 -0600, Peng Yu wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I installed ruby1.9.1. But there is not a symbolic link from ruby to
> > > ruby1.9.1 (the executable). I'm wondering if ubuntu deliberately not
> > > to make a link from ruby to ruby1.9.1?
> > > 
> > 
> > Ubuntu is following Debian on this one.
> > 
> > Its believed that the two languages (ruby 1.8 and ruby 1.9) are too
> > different from one another to be managed by the alternatives system.
> 
> When users are happy, take the credit even if all the work was done in
> Debian. When users complain, blame Debian and use the passive tense
> to lead the user into thinking that Debian is wrong ("it is believed").
> 
> If Ubuntu believes that Debian is wrong "on this one", maybe you should
> make your own choices and live with the consequences, instead of hiding
> behind Debian?
> 


Lucas, I'm sorry if it seems that I'm implying I speak for Ubuntu as a
project, or that Ubuntu as a project has a consensus on this issue.

Also, I don't see where any credit has been taken in this message, so
you bringing that up (whether it has happened or not) is rather
puzzling.

I happen to think that /usr/bin/ruby should be managed by alternatives,
and I also think that Debian is the place to raise that point, as I
think Ubuntu should continue to follow Debian, to do otherwise would be
preposterous.

I've not spent much time or energy on that point. Because of that, I was
intentionally refraining from commenting either way by stating the fact
in the present tense (It is believed now, not it was believed before or
was decided before), and stating it without attaching either Debian,
Ubuntu, or myself to it directly. That it comes from Debian is implied,
but again, I only wanted to state the facts, not lay blame or suggest
that it should be changed.

> > Your best bet is probably to use rvm.
> 
> You realize that the installation instruction for RVM are to run:
> bash < <( curl http://rvm.beginrescueend.com/releases/rvm-install-head )
> ?
> (from http://rvm.beginrescueend.com/rvm/install/)
> 

I do. Most ruby developers I discuss this issue with outside the Ubuntu
and Debian world are quite comfortable with this solution, even with the
problems it brings. I think I understand why its not packaged.. because
we have an alternatives system for that in Debian and Ubuntu.

I guess if you think rvm is really awful, then I can see how you might
see my suggestion to use it as negative commentary.

I'm curious what would be another solution to this issue?