Dne 4.1.2012 16:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/02/2012 08:55 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
Hi guys,
thank you all for your comments. I updated the guidelines draft to reflect them:
Again thanks for the new guidelines. Just a couple more comments
inline below
- BR: ruby is now replaced with BR: ruby-devel for Ruby packages.
Possible duplication / discrepancy:
- In 'Ruby Packaging Guidelines':
"Ruby packages *must* require ruby-devel package at build time with a
|BuildRequires: ruby-devel|, and *may* indicate the minimal ruby
version they need for building."
- In 'Build Architecture and File Placement':
"All non-gem ruby packages *must* require ruby-devel package at build
time with a |BuildRequires: ruby-devel|. "
Which should it be, 'all' ruby packages or just 'non-gem' ruby
packages. Most likely the former, so for simplicity sake, the latter
should be removed.
The latter is correct, since gems requires rubygems-devel and that
should be enough for gems.
However, reading the guidelines again, I am not happy with the
structure. We have RubyGems section, but we don't have Non-gems section.
The "Build Architecture and File Placement" should be probably 3rd level
and we need some nice 2nd level caption. Any idea?
- The Gem versioned dependencies for R: and BR: were reformulated.
Looks good, again though, going w/ the bundler discussion we should
also include a bit saying that the gem dependencies in the rpm spec,
gemspec, and bundler Gemfile.lock (as well as any other package
management system files tracking this) must be kept in sync.
- Examples for packaging Gems with C extensions (did some rewriting in that
section, too)
Looks good
and packaging Ruby applications (also fixed the header from h3 to h2 here :))
were added.
As far as the application example, is there a known example of one we
could show that doesn't use rubygems. I imagine alot of end-user
applications written in ruby do no use gems. I know the topic of
shipping deltacloud in a non-gem form has been brought up on the
deltacloud lists.
Puppet always comes to me mind, but I am not sure that its .spec is the
one I would like to use as an example :) But Bohuslav will have some tip
I hope.
- Creation of non-Gem subpackages is no longer allowed.
Any thoughts on removing the rest of the contents of that section and
just leave the caution. The extra stuff looks like it just creates
clutter and can be retrieved from the wiki history if we wanted.
It would be great if you could comment on the changes.
Thoughts? I can go in and make the proposed changes if that'd
elaborate / is desired.
Please feel free to update the draft wherever you think is suitable.
Vit
-Mo
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
