[Mageia-dev] [RFC] Ruby packaging policy

Mon Jan 10 01:49:30 CET 2011

Le vendredi 07 janvier 2011 à 23:45 +0100, Remy CLOUARD a écrit :
+> Hello there,
+> 
+> It’s been quite some time since I started working on ruby modules, and
+> I’ve been working on the policy too.
+> 
+> You can find the page here:
+> http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/Ruby
+> 
+> Now, there are some things that still need to be clarified.
+> 
+> The most controversial part is the naming convention.
+> 
+> Many ruby modules are packaged via gem, and fedora introduced a strange
+> naming convention, calling their package rubygem-%{gemname}. This
+> convention was soon followed by other rpm-based distro such as opensuse
+> and momonga, and we also have some of them.
+
+This cause problem since we do have rpm present twice ( without people
+noticing, as I dicovered when trying to use gitorious ). More ever, this
+is confusing for packagers. There is also potential breakage if someone
+start to do tarball, then gems, etc etc. 
+
+I have already expressed my opinion on the subject, and still maintain
+it :
+
+ruby rpm should be ruby-*.
+
+Several people ( Pascal Terjan
+http://lists.mandriva.com/cooker/2010-11/msg00063.php , Guillaume
+Rousse ) also raised concern about this when this discovered after being
+pushed 1 year ago without discussion
+( http://lists.mandriva.com/cooker/2010-03/msg00401.php ) . 
+
+Python does also have egg, and they play nice with rpm ( ie, we ship
+file that make egg think our python module are installed as egg ).
+Cpan also provides archives ( but that unused )
+
+
+> I’m not against changing that convention, but this raises also other
+> questions.
+> 1) Do we also need to change the provides/requires ? ie
+> Requires: ruby(%{gemname})
+> instead of
+> Requires: rubygem(%{gemname})
+>
+> 2) is there a way to make youri watch for rubygem-%{gemname} in case we
+> opt for that change ? Or better, can youri watch for %{gemname} on
+> rubygems.org ?
+
+yes. Just need a patch :)
+
+> About files:
+> shall we keep the gem in the cache directory ? I’m not sure this is
+> really useful, up till now I added it, but it makes the package a bit
+> bigger
+
+Well, what is the goal of keeping the source in two location ?
+
+> Shall we do a -doc subpackage for big packages ? I think it may be
+> interesting for package that have a lot of documentation and that are
+> part of an ecosystem (ie, gems required for other packages like
+> gitorious)
+
+That's not specific to ruby. Again, we should follow existing
+conventions.
+
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+