On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:35:26 +0200 Martin Vidner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 08:00:45AM +0200, Josef Reidinger wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:12:05 +0200 > > Martin Vidner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Have you considered going all the way and packaging our repos as > > > gems? You know, gemspec, gem2rpm, rpm. > > > > > > Maybe the parts with C++, cough Perl cough, would be harder, but > > > it should be easy for pure Ruby, once we conform to the > > > conventions as proposed above. > > > > > > I think the benefit would be that bundler could set up things that > > > we now need to do in VMs. > > > > Yes, we [have] consider[ed] it and [the] reason why not [use gems] > > is still [the] same. A yast module > > contain beside lib also other parts like clients, modules, autoyast > > schemas and others, which cannot be packaged as gem, as we cannot > > get them into correct location. > > Yes, but these are all part of a YaST API that we control, so we > could amend core and ruby-bindings to look in new gem-style paths. > > Are there paths that we do not control? > - desktop files > - ...? - fillup scripts Other then that probably not.
pgpURogWEaWwJ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
