Hi everyone I manage a lot of Ruby packages (~230) in AUR, updated ~150 of them recently. I would like to share my experience with herding these packages. Some of the issues might be similar to other language package systems (cpan, pip, nodejs). First it worth mention that Ruby has its own packages manager (rubygems). It is the standard and nearly all ruby software distributed via rubygems. Rubygems has its package specification that includes information like project homepage, developer contacts, license, information about native dependencies. It makes sense to parse those specifications and use it for PKGBUILD maintenance. The idea is to have a script that will create ruby packages, will bump versions, update dependencies if needed. And this scriptability is important - copy/pasting ruby gems information is boring and error-prone. There are several scripts that perform gem->arch conversion and I work on one of them called 'gem2arch' [1]. >From other side rubygems differ from pacman that sometimes make it harder to match packages. The main difference is that rubygems has very flexible dependency mechanism. Several versions of a package can be installed at the same time. Another package can specify custom dependency restriction. It can depend on a specific version e.g. '=4.0.2' or it can ask for a range of versions, or any crazy set of restrictions like 'provide me package FOO with version between 2.3 and 3.1.4 but excluding 2.8 and 3.0.2'. The most popular type of dependency restriction is 'approximately greater' aka '~>'. '~>3.0.3' means 'give me package with version 3.0.XXX where XXX equal or larger than 3'. '~>' is quite popular mechanism to stick to a specific version range with stable API. Because rubygem can have several versions of the package installed such restrictions do not block other packages from using more recent versions. Thus package FOO might use version 2.x while BAR uses 3.x and everyone is happy. This dependency mechanism is different from the Arch where the preferred form of dependency is 'use HEAD version'. Several versions can be installed in Arch by adding version suffix to the package name e.g. ruby1.8 or apachae2.2. But versioned packages is an exception rather than rule in Arch. In rubygems using non-HEAD version is normal and widely-used practice. ~20% of my ruby packages are versioned one, e.g. ruby-rail-2 ruby-tilt-1. ruby-rails-2 means the latest version of rails 2.xx and ruby-tilt-1 is the latest version of tilt 1.yy. Dependency version calculation might be tricky in case of complex dependency restrictions, e.g. foo-2.2.1 might be either 'foo', 'foo-2', 'foo-2.2' or 'foo-2.2.1' depending on what other released version 'foo' has. Doing these calculations manually might be tricky but thanks to 'gem2arch' it makes things easier. In general adding/updating packages is a simple task (thanks to gem2arch). Only small number of packages require custom modifications like source patching or adding native dependencies. Emphasizing importance of scripting I would like to mention a rule that makes scripting harder. Ruby language page [3] says "For libraries, use ruby-$gemname. For applications, use the program name". How to calculate this rule in a script? Is a file in /usr/bin enough to tell that this is an app? Actually a lot of the ruby libraries can be used both as command-line application and a library (rake, rdoc, rubygems, erubis, nokogiri, ....) it is safe to tell that all packages in rubygems are libraries. If so I propose to change this rule to "all ruby packages should be named ruby-$gemname". Other ruby users like this idea [2]. Also some maintainers try to make package names nicer and do not follow "ruby-$gemname" rule. For example 'rubyirc' gem was packed as ruby-irc Arch package. It is harder for a script to match the gem to this package. Also there was a problem when another gem called 'irc' appeared, this one is actually should be used for 'ruby-irc' package. So I propose another rule for Ruby (and other languages) - follow 'ruby-$gemname' even if gemname already contains a mention of 'ruby'. To negative side of ruby packaging in AUR I can add bad situation with inactive maintainers. The ruby packages are spread over many maintainers most of which are inactive and do not update packages. Ruby packages in AUR stay out-of-date for many months. In general I think that for an active ruby development that does not require Arch dependencies 'gem installed in $HOME' is better way to go. [1] https://github.com/anatol/gem2arch [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Talk:Ruby_Gem_Package_Guidelines [3] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ruby_Gem_Package_Guidelines
