On 28/01/09 at 16:53 -0800, Bryan McLellan wrote: > For pure ruby libraries I've been using libpackage-ruby as the virtual > package and libpackage-ruby1.[8,9] for the version specific packages. > > Erubis while essentially a library contains a binary package. I don't > know that anyone would use it as an individual package. Is it DRE > policy in this case to name it 'erubis' or 'liberubis-ruby'? > > I'll soon be packaging ohai, which is used as a binary as often as a > library. irb, and ri both provide package1.x versions, mongrel does > not. Is it policy to build packages with 1.8 and .19 versions?
Hi Bryan, We (ruby interpreter maintainers) are currently discussing various things related to the ruby1.8 and ruby1.9 packaging. We plan to come up with a document (that will include questions that need to be answered) to discuss it with pkg-ruby-extras@ and debian-r...@. One of the questions is the library naming convention, so this might be changed soon. In the meantime, in your specific case, you could have a eruby/ohai package that contains the binary, uses the version of ruby that you want to support, and two library packages for people willing to use the library from ruby1.8 or ruby1.9. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [email protected] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [email protected] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | _______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
