Installing Ruby suggestion

[Paul Hoffman]

At 4:16 PM -0700 8/20/10, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:55:33 -0400
>Eitan Adler <lists at eitanadler.com> mentioned:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at proper.com> wrote:
>> > Greetings again. When doing a "make install", it takes *forever* in the "Generating RDoc documentation" step. This isn't a big deal the first time, but when updating Ruby (such as for the recent security announcement), you need to do a "make deinstall" before you do a "make reinstall". Having that second step take a long time means that there is a longer time that there is no Ruby on the system.
>> >
>> > Could the RDoc step be done during "make" instead of "make install"?
>> >
>>
>> Generally its best to CC the maintainer as well. In this case the
>> maintainer is stas at freebsd.org
>>
>> That being said: I second this request ;)
>>
>
>Ruby install systems works this way.  I'm not sure I can do anything about this.
>You may try asking on the ruby mailing list although.
>
>If you concerned about rdoc, you can disable them via OPTIONS.  The time when there're
>no ruby in the system is probably critical for production environments, where
>rdoc is not required.  Another option is to use packages, although I understand it
>usually takes a bit of time for official packages to appear (but that's a different
>story); but you can build the updated package on a separate machine and then distribute
>it over critical servers.
>
>Nonetheless, I'll try to look on what I can do.  But I can't promise anything, because
>this is really something that should be done on ruby side.

Thanks. You may get some pushback because other package systems don't do the equivalent of "make deinstall; make reinstall", but it is worth asking. I alway think of "make install" as "push the binaries that we just made into the proper places", not "make some more stuff and then push".

--Paul Hoffman