Package fpm into self-sufficient system packages using travelling ruby and itself #1270
Comments
|
There a bunch of examples of doing this already (in examples), but for
whatever reason has not become official.
…On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 05:46 Daniel Jay Haskin, ***@***.***> wrote:
I would like to start work on fpm which would add a script at the root,
maybe called package.sh, which used travelling ruby
<https://github.com/phusion/traveling-ruby> and fpm itself to create
system packages for different linux distributions. These packages would be
self-sufficient, and would not need the ruby interpreter installed on the
installation machine to work.
This would improve the distributability of fpm a lot, and perhaps would
obviate the need to fix bugs bugs like #1264
<#1264>, since it would allow
us to choose the ruby interpreter upon which fpm is run, even on old OS's.
It makes a lot of sense to package the interpreter, since fpm is used
primarily through the commandline.
The script would work something like this:
1. Use travelling ruby to make a .tar.xz self-sufficent tarball
containing fpm.
2. Use fpm itself and some scripting to turn the .tar.xz into a
debian, rpm, arch, os/x package.
I recently finished a project like this, except I was doing the same thing
to a python package. I would like to do the same thing for fpm.
What do you guys think?
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1270>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARCJe6sqOuxwVcNOuRQcb_kaf8wVW36ks5rQ7XJgaJpZM4LfokF>
.
|
|
For whatever reason == time. There are 300+ issues, so for whatever reason, more than a few of them are in the backlog and not being worked on. If you'd like to see this happen, feel free to submit a PR and we can discuss there. If it works and is easy to maintain, it might be considered. |
|
Sorry, i wasn't meaning to criticise, i really appreciate the efforts
people put in to fpm
…On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:51 Jose Diaz-Gonzalez, ***@***.***> wrote:
For whatever reason == time. There are 300+ issues, so for whatever
reason, more than a few of them are in the backlog and not being worked on.
If you'd like to see this happen, feel free to submit a PR and we can
discuss there. If it works and is easy to maintain, it might be considered.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1270 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARCJeopLrTurRsowpdzDFQGXMGu8CnRks5rQ_1GgaJpZM4LfokF>
.
|
|
Just linked this in another ticket – my solution is to reduce outside dependencies to a JVM, by using |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I would like to start work on fpm which would add a script at the root, maybe called
package.sh, which used travelling ruby and fpm itself to create system packages for different linux distributions. These packages would be self-sufficient, and would not need the ruby interpreter installed on the installation machine to work.This would improve the distributability of fpm a lot, and perhaps would obviate the need to fix bugs bugs like #1264, since it would allow us to choose the ruby interpreter upon which fpm is run, even on old OS's. It makes a lot of sense to package the interpreter, since fpm is used primarily through the commandline.
The script would work something like this:
I recently finished a project like this, except I was doing the same thing to a python package. I would like to do the same thing for fpm.
What do you guys think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: