I do agree that it's very likely to miss out information such as patches and bug fixes applied if we rely on gem versions solely.
Maybe we can compare the timestamp of the built rpm to that of the gem commits? Then we can roughly tell by the time the rpm was built, which patches have already been applied. Apparently this method can't be 100% accurate. I'm trying to figure out some other more reliable way, but I'm still kinda new to the Fedora dev community, so it will probably take some time for me to get a better grip on these. I'll have to dig deeper to see exactly what information is available. By the way, could you please give some examples of such gem/rpm? Thanks, Zuhao On Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Wan Zuhao wrote: > I see your point. > > > > > On Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) > wrote: > > > On 2012-04-14 21:08, Wan Zuhao wrote: > > > Hi Jeroen, > > > > > > What you've suggested is definitely a good idea. I do agree it's > > > important > > > to reflect which *version*, in addtion to the name, link, etc. of a > > > particular gem that was converted into rpm, as sometimes the latest > > > patches > > > and bug fixes are not included in the rpm. > > > > > > > > > The point is also, sometimes bug fixes (especially security issues) > > *are* in fact included in the RPM, but the gem/rpm package version > > number would not reflect that. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Jeroen van Meeuwen > > > > -- > > Systems Architect, Kolab Systems AG > > > > e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com (http://kolabsys.com) > > m: +44 74 2516 3817 > > w: http://www.kolabsys.com > > > > pgp: 9342 BF08 > > _______________________________________________ > > ruby-sig mailing list > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
