Dne 22.1.2014 15:41, Klaus Kaempf napsal(a):
* 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.
The real cost is in using it. More complicated package tree = more
confusion about:
* what exactly needs to be installed for some purpose and what is
optional (complicates e.g. writing READMEs and various manuals)
* what files belong to which package
* what depends (or should depend) on what
* etc.
(I am saying that as a person who had to deal with understanding several
such package trees in the last few weeks and who just yesterday wrote a
workaround for a bug resulting from sloppy package splitting.)
--
David Majda
SUSE developer
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
