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