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 ------- Additional Comments From oliver.andrich@xxxxxxxxx 2006-02-05 07:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > 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. Well, I agree with you, but concerning the License tag I like to put some kind of comment into the file to clarify the license issue. Or do you suggest to correct this in case someone commits a new package? > - 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? Basically you could provide a ruby extension, that only requires the ruby package, but you mentioned the right thing. ruby-libs is what I shall require in the template, especially cause the directories from the macros are provided by ruby-libs. I am not sure what the reasoning behind this python-abi = %(...) is, but what I need to check is, that ruby is >= 1.8 cause there are syntactic differences between ruby 1.6 and ruby 1.8. But this is the only thing I have to check. How would you implement this? > - BuildRequires: ruby is needed, because ruby-devel does not pull in ruby > (only ruby-libs) and ruby is invoked in the above Requires: ... line Fixed. And most of the time you also need ruby to execute some kind of install script. > - Should use %{ruby_sitelib} and %{ruby_sitearch} for consistency with perl > and python Fixed. > - The current %{ruby_sitedir} definition actually defines %{ruby_sitearch} Fixed. > - Is there a generic thingy that ruby extensions use akin to perl's "perl > Makefile.PL ; ..." and python's "python setup.py ..."? Sadly not yet. I have two packages submitted so far, and both use different approaches. But these things are clarifying in the future. A lot developers are moving to Gems, which is ruby's CPAN equivalent. > 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
