* Josef Reidinger <[email protected]> [Jan 22. 2014 15:28]: > On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:18:13 +0100 > Klaus Kaempf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * Martin Vidner <[email protected]> [Jan 22. 2014 14:58]: > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 01:23:25PM +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote: > > > > I'd like to generate the following packages for Ruby 2.1 > > > > > > > > 1. ruby-2.1 > > > > This would provide binaries (ruby, irb, rake, gem, ...) and a > > > > minimal set of documentation (changelog, readme, news, ...) > > > > > > > > 2. libruby2 > > > > This would only provide the libruby2.1.so.2.0.0 shared library > > > > > > > > 3. ruby-stdlib > > > > This would provide the /usr/lib64/ruby/2.1.0/ directory tree. > > > > > > Which use case needs 1+2+3 separated? > > > > Just for smaller maintenance updates. > > I think it is not enough value to do it.
Doing it is simple, just more %package and %file tags. > It is more confusing to users. > I think that if you want rid of multiversion there should be one "ruby" > package that contains the latest upstream stable version. Users won't notice since its handled by dependencies. > > P.S. Thanks to write suggestion on mailing list before you start > implementing ;) Well, I did start implementing the new scheme in home:kwk:ruby to get some idea about its complexity. It turned out to be pretty simple. Klaus -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
