On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:37:14 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote, at 06/15/2009 03:52 AM +9:00: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/472621 >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/472622 >> >> Reported in Nov 2008. >> >> Is it really that difficult to fix it? >> No, but I have not had the time to do it yet. > > Well, actually these two packages are _the same_ (currently > versions of rpms on Fedora are different, however) > The difference is that ruby-sqlite3 creates non-gem ruby module, > while rubygem-sqlite3-ruby creates ruby gem. > > Curret ruby packaging guideline says that [1] > > " > Packaging for Gem and non-Gem use > > If the same Ruby library is to be packaged for use as a Gem and > as a straight Ruby library without Gem support, it must be packaged > as a Gem first. > " > And we have the way and allow to create non-gem ruby module (rpm) packages > as a subpackage of a package based on rubygem. So for this case > ruby-sqlite3 "srpm" must be obsoleted by rubygem-sqlite3-ruby "srpm" and > ruby-sqlite3 "binary rpm" should be created as the subpackage of > rubygem-sqlite3-ruby. > And the ruby-sqlite3 package (as in the separate entity in CVS etc.) has to be obsoleted. I have had it on my TODO list for a while now, it's about time I tackle it. Beat me to it if you will, I know I'll not be able to fix this in the next 4 days. Thanks in advance! -Jeroen -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
