Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Request: Inclusion of a ruby template file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180066 ville.skytta@xxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |fedora-extras- | |list@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@xxxxxx 2006-02-05 06:28 EST ------- I think this is a good idea, but the implementation is not quite ready. In particular: - Too many comments for a spec template at the top of the specfile near the %defines as well as the License tag. - Requires: ruby = %(...) needs verification whether it does the right thing. Maybe something like python(abi) and perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_*) should be implemented in the ruby(-libs?) package. Additionally, do all ruby extension packages require ruby, or would ruby-libs be more appropriate? - BuildRequires: ruby is needed, because ruby-devel does not pull in ruby (only ruby-libs) and ruby is invoked in the above Requires: ... line - Should use %{ruby_sitelib} and %{ruby_sitearch} for consistency with perl and python - The current %{ruby_sitedir} definition actually defines %{ruby_sitearch} - Is there a generic thingy that ruby extensions use akin to perl's "perl Makefile.PL ; ..." and python's "python setup.py ..."? Help from people who are familiar with ruby packaging would be appreciated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
