[BioRuby] Ruby installation

[Joachim Baran]

Hi!

  Thanks for the security info. Luckily it does not affect my line of work.

  Maybe the described dependency hell in one of your other links is more
relevant to web-developers. I do not use Rails and have not encounters
major problems in this regard.

Kim


On 29 April 2014 11:44, Russell Whitaker <russell.whitaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> Please tell me you're kidding: the default Mavericks /usr/bin/ruby is
> "ruby 2.0.0p247 (2013-06-27 revision 41674)
> [universal.x86_64-darwin13]", which contains a now well-known security
> vulnerability:
>
> http://blog.rubygems.org/2013/09/09/CVE-2013-4287.html
> http://www.scip.ch/en/?vuldb.11266
>
> Yes, the default "works out-of-the-box," but that's insufficient.
> Every _professional_ ruby development shop uses some kind of ruby
> version management, be it rvm, rbenv, chruby, or whatever.
>
> Friends don't let friends use system ruby:
> http://robots.thoughtbot.com/psa-do-not-use-system-ruby
>
> "On Linux I usually just pick the latest Ruby interpreter and that works
> then. Having said that, my Linux VMs usually do not last very long (purged
> after the job is done), so I do not know how great the Linux eco-system
> maintains versioning."
>
> Using the same ruby version management tools as above. Really.
>
> Russell
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Joachim Baran <joachim.baran at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hey!
> >
> >   I wholeheartedly disagree. :)
> >
> >   I had to use rvm beforehand, because Ruby installations were a mess.
> > However, with the newest Mac OS X I find that the up-to-date Ruby
> > interpreter works really well -- including the gem system. MacPorts also
> > installed some Ruby versions in its /opt hierarchy, but those are at the
> > end of my $PATH and get ignored.
> >
> >   On Linux I usually just pick the latest Ruby interpreter and that works
> > then. Having said that, my Linux VMs usually do not last very long
> (purged
> > after the job is done), so I do not know how great the Linux eco-system
> > maintains versioning.
> >
> >   So, from my perspective, Ruby is the easy choice that works
> > out-of-the-box.
> >
> > Kim
> >
> >
> > On 28 April 2014 22:14, Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public14 at thebird.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> It used to be that Ruby was easy to install.
> >>
> >> But the last years I find people are having real trouble installing
> >> Ruby and gems. I also run into odd annoyances, even if I can handle
> >> rvm myself. I am running into this because I am teaching people to use
> >> my gems :). I think it is too hard for a language that is supposed to
> >> be easy.
> >>
> >> Anyone disagree?
> >>
> >> Can we develop a best practise protocol that works for our gems at
> >> least on all Linux distributions? What would be the best way? And
> >> maybe we can extend to OSX and Windows later.
> >>
> >> Homebrew would be nice, but it needs a good Ruby to bootstrap. RVM is
> >> too tricky.
> >>
> >> Do we need to build from source, perhaps? Or start using GUIX?
> >>
> >> Any suggestions other then use my 'favorite' distribution are welcome.
> >>
> >> Pj.
>
> --
> Russell Whitaker
> http://twitter.com/OrthoNormalRuss
> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/russell-whitaker/0/b86/329
> _______________________________________________
> BioRuby Project - http://www.bioruby.org/
> BioRuby mailing list
> BioRuby at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioruby
>