On 22.01.2014 14:19, Sascha Peilicke wrote: > On Wednesday 22 January 2014 13:52:30 Jordi Massaguer Pla wrote: >> On 01/22/2014 01:23 PM, Klaus Kaempf wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> going forward, Ruby becomes more important in the openSUSE and SLES >>> codebase. This is why Coolo asked me to come up with a new Ruby >>> packaging scheme. Read on to learn about my current thinking in this >>> regard. >>> >>> What are the goals ? >>> >>> 1. revert the ruby, rubyXY, and ruby-common split >>> >>> Initially done to allow multiple Ruby versions in parallel, it >>> wasn't really used and developers use rvm or rbenv to achieve the >>> same effect. >>> From a buildservice perspective, this split cause more headaches >>> than it provided value. >> >> in studio product we have ruby 1.8 and ruby 1.9 at the same time because >> the first one is a requirement from WebYast and the second one from >> studio itself. I am not saying this is good or desirable, but please >> take in mind this kind of situation. > > Mucho agreed. I strongly vote for keeping parallel-installability. For > several > products (like Cloud) this is a must-have. And it's already present in > openSUSE (and thus SLE12). > >> >>> 2. Ruby will be part of inst-sys (for YaST) > > > Another good reason why you want parallel installs. ATM ruby-2.1 is fresh > like > cheese. But this version on SLE_X. Let 6 years pass and take one of our Ruby- > based products. It will likely use ruby-42 by then. You can't drop ruby21 > because of yast but you need ruby42 because of $PRODUCT... > For this to work you also need to make the gems parallel installable - do you want to work on that?
Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
