On 03/01/2011 11:17 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 01/03/11 at 10:44 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: >> On 02/27/2011 04:31 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >>> Ideally, we would have binary packages named like that: >>> ruby-foo: arch-indep part of the foo library >>> ruby1.8-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built for ruby1.8 >>> ruby1.9.1-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built for ruby1.9.1 >> >> Here you're basically at a point where Python was years ago - one binary >> package for every supported version. i think you should find a way to >> move the whole stuff for all ruby versions into one package and find a >> proper way to handle dependencies and whatever else is needed. > > Here we are only discussing Ruby libraries that ship .so files.
That shouldn't make a difference if you find a way to handle the dependencies to whatever they link properly. Unfortunately i don't know enough about th einternals of Ruby to make a really useful suggestion, but I'm sure it would be possible to find a proper solution which doesn't involve a lot of additional packages. -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d6cdd44.5060...@bzed.de