Hi,
In the pkg-ruby-extras team, we are currently discussing some big
changes in our packaging tools.
A problem arises for libraries that have a large
architecture-independent part that can be shared between the various
implementations of ruby interpreters (ruby1.8, ruby1.9.1, jruby,
rubinius), b
[Lucas Nussbaum]
> However, that creates many small dependency cycles. I am under the
> impression that dependency cycles are considered bad, but that we
> have many of them already, and that no important part of our
> infrastructure or tools really has problems with them. Also, they
> are limited
Le dimanche 27 février 2011 à 16:31 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> Ideally, we would have binary packages named like that:
> ruby-foo: arch-indep part of the foo library
> ruby1.8-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built for ruby1.8
> ruby1.9.1-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built f
Hi,
circular dependencies are bad for a variety of reasons already explained here
(plus probably some others), but...
On Sonntag, 27. Februar 2011, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> - Piuparts is not able to come up with a sensible order to test
>packages when there are dependency loops. A work
On 27/02/2011 16:31, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> But then, we have a problem, because:
> - ruby-foo need one of (ruby1.8-foo, ruby1.9.1-foo, jruby-foo,
> rubinius-foo) installed to work correctly
I find this dependency tedious. If someone installs ruby-foo, how can
he expect it to work if he does no
On 02/27/2011 04:31 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Ideally, we would have binary packages named like that:
> ruby-foo: arch-indep part of the foo library
> ruby1.8-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built for ruby1.8
> ruby1.9.1-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built for ruby1.9.1
Here you'
On 01/03/11 at 10:44 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 02/27/2011 04:31 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Ideally, we would have binary packages named like that:
> > ruby-foo: arch-indep part of the foo library
> > ruby1.8-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built for ruby1.8
> > ruby1.9.1-foo: arch-
On 03/01/2011 11:17 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 01/03/11 at 10:44 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> On 02/27/2011 04:31 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>> Ideally, we would have binary packages named like that:
>>> ruby-foo: arch-indep part of the foo library
>>> ruby1.8-foo: arch-dep part of the foo li
Le dimanche 27 février 2011 16:31:29, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> But then, we have a problem, because:
> - ruby-foo need one of (ruby1.8-foo, ruby1.9.1-foo, jruby-foo,
> rubinius-foo) installed to work correctly
ok
> - ruby1.8-foo, ruby1.9.1-foo, jruby-foo, rubinius-foo need ruby-foo
> instal
9 matches
Mail list logo