* Duncan Mac-Vicar P. <[email protected]> [Jan 28. 2014 14:53]: > > > > Packaging proposal: > > > > 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. > > > > 4. ruby-doc > > This would provide the full Ruby documentation including samples. > > > > 5. ruby-macros ? > > This would be a new name for ruby-common, a package only used for > > building ruby GEM packages. > > Actually, I'm not happy about the name. It should reflect the package > > usage. ruby-devel-build or ruby-build-macros could be alternatives. > > > > 6. ruby-devel, ruby-devel-extra, ruby-doc-ri > > These would stay unchanged. > > I agree with .4. > > 2. is useful only for extensions I guess. > 3. Not sure if this bring value. Can ruby be already be ran without the > stdlib or will the package have to require it anyway?
2+3 would be a hard dependency of the main ruby package. The split is just for maintenance/upgrade reasons, to make fixes easier to distribute and faster to install. > 5. What prevent those to go to ruby-devel? Nothing. A merge of ruby-common to ruby-devel is easily doable. 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]
