On 09/11/2015 07:51 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Dne 10.9.2015 v 15:53 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): >> * Increases the available pool of software that can be packaged >> substantially (many modern languages such as Ruby and Go are >> realistically only functional with allowable bundling) > > Not sure why you put Ruby into this group. There is no evidence that > bundling is more prominent in Ruby then in other languages. If your > judgment is based on existence of rubygem-bundler, then you completely > misunderstand purpose of the project. To bring up ruby - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/560 rubygem-bundler bundles rubygem-thor, rubygem-net-http-persistent, and rubygem-molinilio. >From discussion with upstream here: https://github.com/bundler/bundler/issues/3647 I get: Bundler is meant to be installed as a gem. The Bundler team does not provide support for installing or using Bundler as an OS package. The way Ruby handles dependencies unfortunately forces us to modify and vendor Thor and Molinillo. The public versions of Thor and Molinillo are not usable by Bundler. Trying to use them instead of the vendored versions will create certain situations where applications are completely broken and unable to function. Please don't do that. We're not going to change how we vendor things to make it easier to remove vendored code, because removing the vendored code will break both Bundler and applications that use Bundler. At this point I say fine, upstream actively doesn't want it shipped as an OS package, so let's just drop it. Of course: # dnf repoquery --whatrequires rubygem-bundler --source --alldeps rOCCI-server-1.1.6-6.20150217git73409ea.fc24.src.rpm rubygem-appraisal-0.5.2-3.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-bundler-1.7.8-3.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-bundler_ext-0.4.0-2.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-gemnasium-parser-0.1.9-4.fc23.src.rpm rubygem-rails-4.2.4-1.fc24.src.rpm vagrant-1.7.4-1.fc24.src.rpm This means no rails or vagrant in Fedora. But this is what has been driving some of my thinking lately. Now, perhaps upstream's real position is that they don't support it as an OS package *if the OS package is modified*. This then brings us back to the question of is it okay to just ship the package as is in Fedora. And maybe it is time to just stop caring so much about this issue. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion@xxxxxxxx Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
