Server Team 2007-11-20 meeting minutes

David Portwood dzp at bellsouth.net
Thu Nov 22 14:30:37 UTC 2007


On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 11:32 +0100, Lionel Porcheron wrote:
> Hi David, Hi all,
> 
> Le mercredi 21 novembre 2007 à 17:05 -0600, David Portwood a écrit :
> >  just setup a hardy vm instance, so I'm about to go through the entire
> > procedure and detail it out for the wiki.
> 
> David has added informations on the wiki page:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RubyOnRailsStack
> 
> I have a few remarks and as we are close to the deadline, I would like
> the widest feedback.
> 
> * I think that the first thing we HAVE to avoid is people using gem (gem
> is the internal ruby package manager). David is talking a lot of gem in
> this spec, we can not afford people to use gem if we want to offer them
> support. That should figure in the rationate IMHO.
I don't see an issue with going non-gem for mongrel and rails, as long
as Rails is relatively new 1.2.5 or better (which it is in Hardy). We
just need to package a Mongrel Cluster to offer what people actually
need. This brings up the question do we rid ourselves of rubygems all
together and package current offered gems?
http://gems.rubyforge.vm.bytemark.co.uk/gems/  has a list of all current
gems, I didn't bother counting, there are ALOT.
The majority of rails developers have various gems installed on
different rails apps, so maybe packaging gems isn't the right idea as we
really have no way to tell the app the gem is installed as gems
typically install into the rails apps dir. 
> * It looks like people are now using a lot Mongrel for rails deployment.
> The biggest problem with Mongrel is that a mongrel instance is needed
> for each rails application. This means we have to make a lot of
> configuration.
Its really just a single file, symlinked from /etc/mongrel/ into the
rails apps config/ dir, thats why I thing we should have a sample app
installed, it gives the user a good POV into the setup of an app.
> * I have looked on several wiki pages for what is written on RoR
> applications deployment, looks like fcgid can still do the work (I
> personally use fcgid on my rails deploys). Here is the tuto on h.u.c:
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RubyOnRails#head-4085777ac71d17a335ae30467137a05e8950883a
> * I would not personally take care of postgresql, 99,9% of people who
> use RoR use MySQL.
The majority of the rails community frowns upon fcgid (apache mod_fcgi)
its performance is less than stellar.
> 
> Maybe this is not the best on the performance point of view, but it
> could be a workable solution without too much efforts.
> 
> One thing we have to be aware, is that RoR is evoluding very fast.
> People often want the latest and greatest release. I'm not sure how (and
> if) we can handle this in a LTS release (I would personally use the
> latest Ubuntu for that purpose, not the LTS). We will face to people who
> will want the latest rails version on LTS (even if it breaks old
> applications). We already have a similar discussion with Samba on a
> previous meeting, but we did not found a consensus.
If people want the latest and greatest they could just use rubygems to
install it, rails apps try to use the system wide installed version,
unless there is a gem version installed, this problem kind of solves
itself here. As far as support for LTS releases, we could just support
the packaged version.
> 
> Mathias, which parts of the specs have to be complete for the spec to be
> approved?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lionel
> 
> -- 
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam





More information about the ubuntu-server mailing list